Be nice to people. This changes the whole environment.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 16
The president has said for weeks that Iran had “no navy,” “no military,” “no air force” and “no anti-aircraft systems.” …
“They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated,” Trump said. “We are unstoppable as a military force.”
And yet somehow this “sunk” navy last week was able to fire on three vessels, seize two, and maintain the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.https://www.contrariannews.org/p/words-and-phrases...
No. of Recommendations: 3
And yet somehow this “sunk” navy last week was able to fire on three vessels, seize two, and maintain the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.
What do you think the rough tonnage of Iran's "Navy" is now?
No. of Recommendations: 13
What do you think the rough tonnage of Iran's "Navy" is now?
Enough to seize tankers and effectively enforce Iran's closure of the strait, in conjunction with their land-based drones and missiles.
We're in an asymmetrical warfare situation. Their military objective and strategies aren't based on a head-to-head shoot-out with our naval forces, but instead to exploit our strategic limitations by using guerrilla tactics.
They've got enough of a Navy to be an effective choke on tanker and merchant vessel traffic. Since those appear to be their strategic goals right now, it looks like they've got all the Navy they need for this phase of the war....
No. of Recommendations: 2
Enough to seize tankers and effectively enforce Iran's closure of the strait, in conjunction with their land-based drones and missiles.
Okay, so a couple of guys with their Mercury outboards, then.
They've got enough of a Navy to be an effective choke on tanker and merchant vessel traffic. Since those appear to be their strategic goals right now, it looks like they've got all the Navy they need for this phase of the war....
I know. We're so doomed, right? Just nothing the United States can do at this point.
Except...keep the blockade going until Iran is using every last 50-gallon drum and tupperware container they have to store the oil they're not shipping anywhere.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Enough to seize tankers and effectively enforce Iran's closure of the strait, in conjunction with their land-based drones and missiles.
Comparing the tonnage of the respective navies US v Iran makes as much sense as comparing the tonnage of the Ukrainian navy v the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Oops- the Russian Black Sea Fleet has suffered a severe reduction in its tonnage- due to a handful of Ukrainian naval drones and missiles that collectively wouldn’t outweigh a Russian patrol boat.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Okay, so a couple of guys with their Mercury outboards, then.
Hey, if that's all you need to get the job done, then that's all you need. That's part of why, despite the decades of war planning, no one figured out how to "solve" the Strait of Hormuz problem. It doesn't take much to close it to civilian transport, and because it takes very little to close it there's no practical way to defend against that.
Except...keep the blockade going until Iran is using every last 50-gallon drum and tupperware container they have to store the oil they're not shipping anywhere.
Yep. And keep it going even after that, if the regime decides to push past that point. Their strategy is that they can endure the pain for far longer than the U.S. and its allies can. Given how much U.S. voters love paying high gas prices (up to $4.18 today, probably much higher on Memorial Day if things don't break), I'm not sure that's a bad strategy for them.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Comparing the tonnage of the respective navies US v Iran makes as much sense as comparing the tonnage of the Ukrainian navy v the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Missed the point, you did.
Iran's "Navy" is one guy driving a speedboat with another guy in the back with his AK or maybe an RPG. That's about it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yep. And keep it going even after that, if the regime decides to push past that point.
Iran has limited work-arounds. At one point, during Trump the Conqueror's first term, his sanctions reduced Iranian exports to only about 200,000bpd. Iran has a pipeline to the Caspian Sea. Other countries around the Caspian, have pipelines to Russia, China, and Turkey.
Trump the Magnificent talks a big game, but he can leave out inconvenient facts, if they don't fit his narrative.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
Hey, if that's all you need to get the job done, then that's all you need. That's part of why, despite the decades of war planning, no one figured out how to "solve" the Strait of Hormuz problem. It doesn't take much to close it to civilian transport, and because it takes very little to close it there's no practical way to defend against that.
Except route the oil demand away from it.
https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2026/04/22/1-6m-...Iraq's Ministry of Oil has announced that exports via the Kirkuk-Fishkhabour-Turkey pipeline are expected to resume soon, initially with limited volumes.
The Ministry said the pipeline, which has a total capacity of 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd), will be brought back into service following completion of hydrostatic testing.
Saheb Al-Bazoun, spokesperson for the Ministry, confirmed that tanker-based exports to Syria, reaching the port of Baniyas, are continuing in parallel.Their strategy is that they can endure the pain for far longer than the U.S. and its allies can.Sure is! I'd way rather have their economy than ours.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Iraq's Ministry of Oil has announced that exports via the Kirkuk-Fishkhabour-Turkey pipeline are expected to resume soon, initially with limited volumes.
That pipeline has been there for years. It was shut down due to a snit between the Baghdad government, and the Kurdish government, through whose territory it passes. Iraqi shipments through the Gulf are obstructed, so, seems $100bbl was the needed motivation for Baghdad and the Kurds to settle their differences.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 5
Iran's "Navy" is one guy driving a speedboat with another guy in the back with his AK or maybe an RPG. That's about it.
Yet they are able to keep the entire US Navy out of the Strait of Hormuz. Nuz you can uz.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Except route the oil demand away from it.
Sure. Bits and pieces. But not enough to route all the oil, no relief on fertilizer or helium or natural gas, and still more expensive than just shipping through the Gulf (which is why they weren't doing it that way before the war). So they still are able to achieve their strategic goals, even if a few million barrels get diverted out of the Gulf trade.
Their strategy is that they can endure the pain for far longer than the U.S. and its allies can.
Sure is! I'd way rather have their economy than ours.
Yes, we have the advantage of having a much stronger economy. But they have the advantage of not particularly caring whether their citizens suffer at all, but our leadership has the disadvantage of having to be responsive to the electorate. It's hard for us to continue prosecuting an unpopular war, whereas they run an authoritarian dictatorship where control comes from the barrel of a gun, not the ballot box. Plus, this is happening to their country - these are existential stakes for the Iranian regime, and much more modest stakes for us - still significant, to be sure, just not as significant as it is for them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
But they have the advantage of not particularly caring whether their citizens suffer at all, but our leadership has the disadvantage of having to be responsive to the electorate. It's hard for us to continue prosecuting an unpopular war, whereas they run an authoritarian dictatorship where control comes from the barrel of a gun, not the ballot box. Plus, this is happening to their country - these are existential stakes for the Iranian regime, and much more modest stakes for us - still significant, to be sure, just not as significant as it is for them.
They have to pay their thugs. Now that Iranian citizens are starting to come out at night and knife them, a particular cost/benefit ration emerges amongst the Basij:
-Go to work, maybe get knifed?
-Or stay at home since the pay is getting thin?
Decisions, decisions.
No. of Recommendations: 8
They have to pay their thugs. Now that Iranian citizens are starting to come out at night and knife them, a particular cost/benefit ration emerges amongst the Basij:
-Go to work, maybe get knifed?
-Or stay at home since the pay is getting thin?
Decisions, decisions.
Oh, that's any easy problem to solve. You tell your thugs that if they stay home, the elite thugs will go to their house and execute them. No "maybe" there. So the thugs are better off showing up to work. And there's always money to pay the elite thugs, even in the most bankrupt and impovershed countries.
That's the whole beauty (dark irony there) of an authoritarian dictatorship. You don't need to rely on the willing cooperation of people, so you don't need to provide for their well-being or success or even pay them much at all. The higher up folks - which includes all your elite secret police and domestic security enforcers - are always complicit in the crimes of the regime, so they know they're up against the wall if the regime falls.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trumps credibility at the bottom of the sea with the Iranian navy...
Trumps DOJ violates the Epstein Files Transparency Act on the daily.
MAGA, listen your cult leaders son...
"Show us the Epstein client list now!!! Why would anyone protect these scumbags?!
Ask yourself this question daily and the answer becomes very apparent!!" ~Don Trump JR, 07/08/23
No. of Recommendations: 3
You tell your thugs that if they stay home, the elite thugs will go to their house and execute them. No "maybe" there. So the thugs are better off showing up to work. And there's always money to pay the elite thugs, even in the most bankrupt and impovershed countries.
So Iran has a super force of well paid, well fed Savak-style guys they can send house-to-house to the Basij guys who normally man checkpoints? Wow.
No. of Recommendations: 7
So Iran has a super force of well paid, well fed Savak-style guys they can send house-to-house to the Basij guys who normally man checkpoints? Wow.
You don't need to send to the guys who normally man checkpoints. You make sure that the guys who are in charge of the Basij guys know that if their guys aren't at their checkpoints, some Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps folks will come calling. And those IO-IRGC agents are people that you don't mess around with, else you disappear to meet a very unpleasant end.
This is a repressive authoritarian security state, Dope. Of course they have folks that will kidnap and torture and kill the ordinary people, in order to make sure things run smoothly. It's a pretty basic set-up - the elite folks threaten the upper-level folks to threaten the mid-level folks to threaten the common folks.
That's why the Iranian regime is acting the way it is. They're fairly confident that the regime can withstand the economic pain that the common folk will endure far longer than the U.S. government can withstand the economic pain - because even though our economy is stronger and the pain is thus proportionally smaller, our government is far more responsive to the pain of its citizens than the Iranian government.
No. of Recommendations: 5
That's why the Iranian regime is acting the way it is.
They're acting the way they are for multiple reasons. Mainly they're looking for domestic political pressure to force Trump to back down. That's been the winning move against the United States since the North Vietnamese demonstrated how to do it in the late 1960's to early 1970's. Since then every opponent of the United States has adopted the same playbook.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Replying to Dope1
That's why the Iranian regime is acting the way it is.
They're acting the way they are for multiple reasons. Mainly they're looking for domestic political pressure to force Trump to back down. That's been the winning move against the United States since the North Vietnamese demonstrated how to do it in the late 1960's to early 1970's. Since then every opponent of the United States has adopted the same playbook.
***********
"opponents of the U.S." obviously includes: 1) The democrat party; 2) the shyte-loving progressives who dominate this board.
No. of Recommendations: 16
What do you think the rough tonnage of Iran's "Navy" is now?
What do you think the artillery firepower of the VietCong was compared to the US?
What do you think the weaponry of the Mujahideen was in comparison to the US?
You can’t seem to get past the “mine is bigger than yours” stage. It isn’t always about “bigger”. Ask your wife, I’m sure she understands it.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Missed the point, you did.
Iran's "Navy" is one guy driving a speedboat with another guy in the back with his AK or maybe an RPG. That's about it.
I didn’t miss the point at all.
Ukraine’s Navy and ability to confront (and sink) the Russian Black Sea Fleet was likewise ridiculed- until they sank the Russian Black Sea Fleet, or at least the major portion of it.
And Ukraine didn’t need a surface or submarine force to do it.
Just some shore based missiles and a few naval drones that were little more than surfboards with bombs strapped on them.
The calculus changes significantly when 30,000 dollars worth of innovation and spare parts proves itself capable of destroying a billion dollar ship.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I didn’t miss the point at all. Yes, you did.
Ukraine’s Navy and ability to confront (and sink) the Russian Black Sea Fleet was likewise ridiculed- until they sank the Russian Black Sea Fleet, or at least the major portion of it
I don't think anyone ridiculed Ukraine at all in this regard. Why would they? The Black Sea is what amounts to a really big lake. Hard to move big ships around.
And Ukraine didn’t need a surface or submarine force to do it.
Just some shore based missiles and a few naval drones that were little more than surfboards with bombs strapped on them.
The calculus changes significantly when 30,000 dollars worth of innovation and spare parts proves itself capable of destroying a billion dollar ship.
Why isn't the US Navy on the bottom of the Gulf? Did the Iranians not try?
No. of Recommendations: 9
Since then every opponent of the United States has adopted the same playbook.
It's the playbook for every opponent that's on the "weak" side of asymmetric warfare. From driving the Brits out of Ireland to fighting the Russians in Afghanistan to, well, fighting the Russians also in Ukraine. And, of course, the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. The invading forces can always decide it isn't worth it and just go home, while the domestic forces have nowhere to go but fight to the bitter end. If the domestic forces can make it painful enough to the invading forces to keep fighting, then they can exercise the choice to leave and just leave - but it's harder for the invading force to get the domestic forces to give up, because they have no option but to keep fighting.
Of course Iran's going to try to turn this into a drawn-out, resource-consuming grind that causes as much pain as possible to the global economy. It's why hoping that something like a blockade might change that dynamic is....well, it sure is optimistic. Sure, they'd rather not have to turn off their oil wells. It's time consuming and costly to restart them, and there's the possibility of significant long-term damage (Iran's had to curtail production at some of their wells in the past at times of peak sanction, and were able to restart them without much difficulty, but the possibility remains). But the same is true of all our other allies in the Gulf, which might partially explain some of UAE's frustration boiling over. And given the choice between taking damage to the oil reservoirs and yielding to the U.S., Iran might still just choose to take the hit and resist.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Why isn't the US Navy on the bottom of the Gulf? Did the Iranians not try?
Except for a brief showing of the flag in the strait by two Arleigh Burkes, the US Fleet hasn’t ventured into the Persian Gulf- because of that speedboat with the AK toting Iranian Guard in the back that you mentioned.
No. of Recommendations: 19
Why isn't the US Navy on the bottom of the Gulf? Did the Iranians not try?
No, they didn’t try.
No, they don’t need to.
Sun Tzu said it 15-hundred years ago (Oh, that Hegseth and what remains of the Pentagon leadership would have ever read it.)
“The Supreme Art of War is to subdue the enemy without fighting”
“So in war the way is to avoid what is strong, attack what is weak”
“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him”
There are lots more. Sadly, we in the grip of those who think direct confrontation is the only path to success, when it’s likely the exact opposite.
No. of Recommendations: 4
The Black Sea is what amounts to a really big lake.
The Black Sea has about twice the surface area of the Persian Gulf.
Why isn't the US Navy on the bottom of the Gulf? Did the Iranians not try?
The USN sent one DDG through the Strait, as a "freedom of navigation" exercise. There is debate whether the ship turned around and left, due to Iranian warnings, or because the US had made it's point.
The USN tried operating in the Gulf in the 80s. It was expensive.
from the net sifter:
USS Samuel B. Roberts (1988): Struck an Iranian mine, severely damaging the frigate and injuring 10 sailors, prompting Operation Praying Mantis.
USS Princeton & USS Tripoli (1991): Both ships were damaged by Iraqi mines during the Gulf War, with the Princeton suffering severe damage from a mine.
The USS Stark (FFG-31) was an Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate commissioned in 1982. On May 17, 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, an Iraqi jet hit her with two Exocet missiles in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21. The crew saved the heavily damaged ship, which was later repaired, decommissioned in 1999, and scrapped in 2006.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
Except for a brief showing of the flag in the strait by two Arleigh Burkes, the US Fleet hasn’t ventured into the Persian Gulf- because of that speedboat with the AK toting Iranian Guard in the back that you mentioned.
Oh, okay.
1. The Navy doesn't have radars to see and guns to shoot these speedboats?
2. So we haven't actually made a run at forcing open the strait. Thanks for making that admission; for some reason the board doesn't want to ack that fact. Not sure why.
No. of Recommendations: 11
So we haven't actually made a run at forcing open the strait. Thanks for making that admission; for some reason the board doesn't want to ack that fact. Not sure why.
What are you talking about? No one has questioned that we haven't tried to open up the strait. I think we're all well aware of that.
The reason we haven't done it is, as we have discussed before, it would expose the U.S. to far greater likelihood of taking losses and possible service member casualties. That's why we kept asking other countries to do it, rather than to do it ourselves. A mix of sea drones, air drones, short-range missiles fired from the mountainous coast, and yes even the guys on the small speedboats make it hazardous to put our ships into the smaller-than-the-Black-Sea "lake" that is the Persian Gulf. Which is why we've almost entirely kept our vessels safely in the Gulf of Oman, and traversed the straits when there was a cease-fire in effect with Iran.
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's the playbook for every opponent that's on the "weak" side of asymmetric warfare. From driving the Brits out of Ireland to fighting the Russians in Afghanistan to, well, fighting the Russians also in Ukraine. And, of course, the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. The invading forces can always decide it isn't worth it and just go home, while the domestic forces have nowhere to go but fight to the bitter end. If the domestic forces can make it painful enough to the invading forces to keep fighting, then they can exercise the choice to leave and just leave - but it's harder for the invading force to get the domestic forces to give up, because they have no option but to keep fighting.
You're not describing what I'm talking about. You're describing insurgent warfare. I'm describing playing to American political opinion. They're not the same thing; a successful insurgent campaign can generate American political pressure as an outcome.
It's why hoping that something like a blockade might change that dynamic is....well, it sure is optimistic. Sure, they'd rather not have to turn off their oil wells. It's time consuming and costly to restart them
Change the word "costly" to the phrase "...may be impossible". Much of Iran's oil fields are low pressure and they lack the tech to do much about it. Once they stop pumping - when they run out of storage - those wells may never restart. As to the "optimistic" part, that's a take for sure. Say, how much gaoline does Iran produce?
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Black Sea has about twice the surface area of the Persian Gulf.
And in an era of constant sat surveillance, it still amounts to a really big lake. BTW. How many exits does it have, and who controls them?
The USN sent one DDG through the Strait, as a "freedom of navigation" exercise. There is debate whether the ship turned around and left, due to Iranian warnings, or because the US had made it's point.
So the Navy turned tail and ran. But thanks for confirming Bill's statement that the US Navy to date hasn't made a determined effort to force open the straits of Hormuz.
USS Samuel B. Roberts (1988): Struck an Iranian mine, severely damaging the frigate and injuring 10 sailors, prompting Operation Praying Mantis.
USS Princeton & USS Tripoli (1991): Both ships were damaged by Iraqi mines during the Gulf War, with the Princeton suffering severe damage from a mine.
The USS Stark (FFG-31) was an Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate commissioned in 1982. On May 17, 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, an Iraqi jet hit her with two Exocet missiles in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21. The crew saved the heavily damaged ship, which was later repaired, decommissioned in 1999, and scrapped in 2006.
I see. So is it the contention that no US ships have come under fire so far?
No. of Recommendations: 3
What are you talking about? No one has questioned that we haven't tried to open up the strait. I think we're all well aware of that.
Are we. I keep reading about the mighty Iranian fleet of Zodiacs cowing the US Navy into merely conducting Freedom of Navigation before turning tail and running away.
The reason we haven't done it is, as we have discussed before, it would expose the U.S. to far greater likelihood of taking losses and possible service member casualties. That's why we kept asking other countries to do it, rather than to do it ourselves.
Because in your mind the French Navy, the Royal Navy and the German High Seas Fleet or whatever they call it now has so much capability above and beyond what we have that they'd be able to handle this?
A mix of sea drones, air drones, short-range missiles fired from the mountainous coast, and yes even the guys on the small speedboats make it hazardous to put our ships into the smaller-than-the-Black-Sea "lake" that is the Persian Gulf. Which is why we've almost entirely kept our vessels safely in the Gulf of Oman, and traversed the straits when there was a cease-fire in effect with Iran.
What would be the point of driving through the strait right now?
No. of Recommendations: 3
And BTW I'm glad to see the Biden-era tactic of parking ships out in the open and painting "Shoot me" on them is finally being understood and rejected by this board. It was always beyond stupid to have the Navy sitting there dodging Houthi missiles for months without doing much in return.
No. of Recommendations: 9
You're not describing what I'm talking about. You're describing insurgent warfare. I'm describing playing to American political opinion. They're not the same thing; a successful insurgent campaign can generate American political pressure as an outcome.
That's how these things work. The small, outgunned guerilla force engages in asymmetric warfare - which forces the larger invading country to expend vast amounts of resources (manpower, material, economic resources) without being able to actually "win" their strategic goals. And they do that until the domestic cost of maintaining that fight is too high. They choose to leave because the domestic political pressure forces them to do something they are not physically forced to do.
Same thing here. Iran's going to throttle the strait and precipitate one of the worst energy crises in history, together with shortages in fertilizer and helium and other goods that have to go through the strait.
Change the word "costly" to the phrase "...may be impossible". Much of Iran's oil fields are low pressure and they lack the tech to do much about it. Once they stop pumping - when they run out of storage - those wells may never restart. As to the "optimistic" part, that's a take for sure. Say, how much gasoline does Iran produce?
It's possible they never restart - but then again, this isn't the first time Iran's had to close down many of their wells, and they will likely close them down based upon their likely resilience. And then rotate among them. And if that doesn't work, then they'll have lost some of their wells.
Doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we've hurt them, perhaps permanently, but if they still resist we still don't get what we want. What happens if they keep resisting?
As to the "optimistic" part, that's a take for sure. Say, how much gasoline does Iran produce?
About 700 million barrels per day, as of last year. They have generally produced about 70% of consumption domestically, with the remainder being imported. However, the domestic gasoline market is heavily distorted by massive subsidies, which keep Iranian gasoline prices among the lowest in the world. The regime has resisted lowering those subsidies because it will be unpopular. Being invaded by a foreign power may give them the domestic cover they need to do that, get consumption matched to economic fundamentals, and rebalance consumption to domestic production - so we might expect that to happen in the near term.
But again, even if they start running short on gasoline, that still doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we've hurt them, but if they still resist, we still don't get what we want. What happens if they keep resisting?
No. of Recommendations: 11
Are we. I keep reading about the mighty Iranian fleet of Zodiacs cowing the US Navy into merely conducting Freedom of Navigation before turning tail and running away.
Where are you reading that?
Because in your mind the French Navy, the Royal Navy and the German High Seas Fleet or whatever they call it now has so much capability above and beyond what we have that they'd be able to handle this?
No. I don't think any naval force has the ability to "handle this" - including our own. Or more specifically, no naval force has the ability to handle this without incurring non-trivial losses, which none of the countries in this discussion - including the U.S. - want to suffer.
What would be the point of driving through the strait right now?
To try to open the strait. Again, we're staring down the barrel of a global energy crisis, to say nothing of the shortages in helium and fertilizer and other important industrial components that are sourced from the Gulf. If we could open the strait with minimal losses, we would have. We haven't, though. Which is why we keep pointing out to you that Iran has all the capabilities they need to have in order to keep the strait forced closed.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Except for a brief showing of the flag in the strait by two Arleigh Burkes, the US Fleet hasn’t ventured into the Persian Gulf- because of that speedboat with the AK toting Iranian Guard in the back that you mentioned. Just looked up the info on the Persian Gulf, and it does strike me as being remarkably shallow:
Average depth 50 m (160 ft)
Max. depth 90 m (300 ft)
Still plenty deep enough for the Navy though I'd imagine. And not that different than the depth of the Great Lakes:
Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Michigan Lake Ontario Lake Superior
Average depth[13] 19 m (62 ft) 59 m (195 ft) 85 m (279 ft) 86 m (283 ft) 147 m (483 ft)
Maximum depth[15] 64 m (210 ft) 228 m (748 ft) 282 m (925 ft) 245 m (804 ft) 406 m (1,333 ft)
No. of Recommendations: 3
That's how these things work. The small, outgunned guerilla force engages in asymmetric warfare - which forces the larger invading country to expend vast amounts of resources (manpower, material, economic resources) without being able to actually "win" their strategic goals. And they do that until the domestic cost of maintaining that fight is too high. They choose to leave because the domestic political pressure forces them to do something they are not physically forced to do.
Yes. This is the textbook example of asymmetric warfare. A lot of times people draw the wrong conclusions from it, though.
Same thing here. Iran's going to throttle the strait and precipitate one of the worst energy crises in history, together with shortages in fertilizer and helium and other goods that have to go through the strait.
Hmm. You'd think that would be enough to motivate certain European countries to not want to be in a position where a collection of nutjobs can hold them hostage at whim, but maybe not. We're not talking about your father's Brits, Germans and French (actually here you'd have to go way back something like 5 generations to find some Napoleon-era French guys).
It's possible they never restart - but then again, this isn't the first time Iran's had to close down many of their wells, and they will likely close them down based upon their likely resilience. And then rotate among them. And if that doesn't work, then they'll have lost some of their wells.
And will that help or hurt their economy?
Doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we've hurt them, perhaps permanently, but if they still resist we still don't get what we want. What happens if they keep resisting?
I suppose they could all fish.
About 700 million barrels per day, as of last year.
I think your estimate is a bit high :)
What happens if they keep resisting?
Then domestic pressure on Trump in the form of the democrat party essentially rooting for an American humiliation grows. That's what the Iranians are counting on. Bush43 held firm; we'll see what Trump does. The democrats don't have unlimited cards to play, though.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Where are you reading that?
This very thread!
No. I don't think any naval force has the ability to "handle this" - including our own. Or more specifically, no naval force has the ability to handle this without incurring non-trivial losses, which none of the countries in this discussion - including the U.S. - want to suffer.
Depends on how ruthless said force wants to be.
To try to open the strait. Again, we're staring down the barrel of a global energy crisis, to say nothing of the shortages in helium and fertilizer and other important industrial components that are sourced from the Gulf. If we could open the strait with minimal losses, we would have. We haven't, though. Which is why we keep pointing out to you that Iran has all the capabilities they need to have in order to keep the strait forced closed.
The strait's been closed for > a month now. Why isn't oil at $400 a barell right now?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Dang, my formatting was off. Let's try again:
Just looked up the info on the Persian Gulf, and it does strike me as being remarkably shallow:
Average depth 50 m (160 ft)
Max. depth 90 m (300 ft)
Still plenty deep enough for the Navy though I'd imagine. And not that different than the depth of the Great Lakes:
𝙇𝙖𝙠𝙚: 𝙀𝙧𝙞𝙚 𝙇𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙃𝙪𝙧𝙤𝙣 𝙇𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙈𝙞𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙣 𝙇𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙊𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙤 𝙇𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧
Average depth 19 m (62 ft) 59 m (195 ft) 85 m (279 ft) 86 m (283 ft) 147 m (483 ft)
Maximum depth 64 m (210 ft) 228 m (748 ft) 282 m (925 ft) 245 m (804 ft) 406 m (1,333 ft)
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Navy doesn't have radars to see and guns to shoot these speedboats?
Mobile platforms are hard to find and attack.
What is *missing* is Spankee's spine.
No. of Recommendations: 8
So the Navy turned tail and ran. But thanks for confirming Bill's statement that the US Navy to date hasn't made a determined effort to force open the straits of Hormuz.
Looks like several of us are making the same point. You can either continue to rhetorically maneuver around that point, or meet that point head on:
Why do you think, with the economic impact of the gulf’s closure growing daily…… that we haven’t ventured to open the Strait of Hormuz?
No. of Recommendations: 10
This very thread!
Did someone say that the U.S. tried to open the straits and failed? In this thread or any other? I must have missed that. Could you point me to it? My position, and I think it's the same as those of other folks, is that the U.S. hasn't tried to open the strait because it would be enormously difficult to do so - in exactly the same way that we haven't tried to overthrow the regime through a ground forces invasion. We could do it, with a combination of naval, air, and ground forces occupying the various islands and coastal areas surrounding the strait. But it would be immensely costly in terms of lives and resources, so we're not willing to do it. For the same reason we're not willing to launch a ground invasion.
The strait's been closed for > a month now. Why isn't oil at $400 a barrel right now?
TACO, of course. :)
The market has been optimistic that the supply interruption will be short, and that the temporary shortfall caused by a modest closure of the strait would be accommodated once it re-opened. Ameliorated by draws on the strategic reserves that were announced early in the conflict. That's why the spot price for oil has been so much higher than the futures price. Dated Brent for immediate delivery is trading closer to $140-150.
I put the smiley on there because it's not truly "TACO," in the sense that markets thought Trump would necessarily turn tail and run. Rather, Trump has continually assured markets that the conflict will be brief, that he felt our war aims had already been achieved, and that Iran was on the verge of giving us everything we want. Right? He has been constantly assuring the markets that the war would be 4-6 weeks, that we were on schedule, that this wasn't going to be a long drawn-out conflict. So I think markets have generally assumed that there was some bundle of things that Iran was already willing to concede that Trump was pretty close to deeming acceptable, and that therefore any shortages would remain in the short term and only affect spot prices. That's also while U.S. oil drillers haven't been expanding capacity - they, too, have been expecting that the conflict would not drag out. But if we really are settling in for a long blockade, you can expect prices to really start climbing.
No. of Recommendations: 9
You'd think that would be enough to motivate certain European countries to not want to be in a position where a collection of nutjobs can hold them hostage at whim, but maybe not.Right - that's why none of them would have ever signed off on this ill-advised adventure in the first place. The
prior threat against Iran (if you hold the strait hostage it would start a war) was sufficient to keep Iran in check, but once we launched an attack on them anyway and killed all their leaders they had little to lose by going up the escalatory ladder.
This
certainly isn't going to lead them to bail us out of the problem we've caused, though. Again, opening the strait
by force will require significant ground forces to seize all the islands and coastal areas. They're not doing that for the same reason we haven't invaded Iran with ground forces to keep a collection of nutjobs from getting a nuclear weapon: not because the goal isn't important, but because their electorate would never stand for putting their troops in harm's way that way.
And will that help or hurt their economy?It will hurt their economy.
But this is the disconnect, I think. Our war objectives aren't "to hurt their economy." Our war objectives deal with their nuclear program, sponsorship of terror groups, etc. There is a
difference between those two things. To use the "underpants gnomes" syllogism here:
1. Hurt their economy.
2. ? ? ?
3. Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
The core problem with this strategy is Step 2 (just like the more humorous scenario of the Underpants Gnomes). How does "hurt their economy" translate into "Iran never gets a nuclear weapon"? Unless it causes the regime to fall, it's hard to see many other paths by which achieving the first step leads to the third step. Which leads us back to the main point - Iran is fairly confident that it can last longer than the U.S. is willing to endure the economic costs.
I suppose they could all fish.They do have other parts of their economy, you know. Lots of economies in the world don't export oil. Iran had their oil exports driven down to only 0.4 mbpd back at the height of Trump's "maximum pressure" on sanctions back in the day, driving the oil sector below 3% of their economy - and they got by without being reduced to only fishing.
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/iran-oil-market...Then domestic pressure on Trump in the form of the democrat party essentially rooting for an American humiliation grows. That's what the Iranians are counting on. Bush43 held firm; we'll see what Trump does. The democrats don't have unlimited cards to play, though.You have no idea how relieved I am to hear you say this. Seriously.
Trump has started a war that is unlikely to achieve the objectives he's set out - at least not with the resources he's willing to commit and the (lack of) casualties he's willing to endure. He seems unable to get to a point where he can point to the outcome and declare it a victory in a way that will be credible. Perhaps he might, but the Iranians seem unwilling to give him even what was on offer before the war started. Given all that, it seems like an irresolvable dilemma. The mistake was in starting the war, expecting it to be a quick high-reward outcome with very little cost, rather than the very real likelihood of a long damaging conflict. But Trump cannot be seen to have made a mistake, so we have to keep going on and on....
....unless. Unless Trump has someone to
blame. Someone whose fault it is that we "lost," someone his base can get behind and agree that
they're the problem, not Trump. So it's great to see the first stirrings of "blame the Democrats" starting to emerge. If that takes hold, then we might be leading somewhere that Trump can find the political (and ego) cover to say that it's the Democrats' fault, not his. And then we can possibly escape the worst consequences of his folly...
No. of Recommendations: 1
But thanks for confirming Bill's statement that the US Navy to date hasn't made a determined effort to force open the straits of Hormuz.
Consider the possibility that Rant #1, as updated and amended, is correct. Reportedly, global big oil made an extra $23B in profit, just over March, thanks to the war. USian big oil is pleased. Trump buddy MBS is pleased, because Saudi has an alternate route to export 7Mbpd, to profiteer in the artificially pinched market. Trump buddy Putin is also pleased, not only with the higher price, but that Trump has given Russia another suspension of sanctions.
Trump postures and roars about "winning", but consider he is playing for a stalemate, to keep the Strait closed, for the profit of himself and his cronies. Consider the existence, and mastery, of 17D chess.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
..unless. Unless Trump has someone to blame.
Interesting possible reason for an exit you have there, albaby.
If it means trading an endless war for suffering the slings and arrows of enraged MAGA calling us surrender monkeys and launching investigations of Democrats for being secret Iranian spies and provocateurs, I’ll take the later.
Trump plays well with accusations and investigations.
Not so well with judges and juries.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Looks like several of us are making the same point. You can either continue to rhetorically maneuver around that point, or meet that point head on:
Why do you think, with the economic impact of the gulf’s closure growing daily…… that we haven’t ventured to open the Strait of Hormuz?Point of order. I first made the point that the Navy hadn't serious tried to open the straits. That point was never acknowledged (because that's how this board works).
Anyway. But to answer your question:
-We're exercising different types of pressure campaigns on Iran. Military force is one. Economic pressure is one.
-It's a race, isn't it? How long can Iran hold out? According to all of you the answer is "indefinitely". I don't believe that's realistic.
Here's a counter question for you: Why isn't oil at $200 a barrel and rising? Why, despite the strait being closed for ~6 weeks or whatever it is, has the price of oil largely stabilized in the mid $90s?
Let's keep going. Now that the board has decided the US hasn't made a concerted effort to open the straits (better late than never), let's examine why that might be. Better yet, let's talk about what that would entail. The Joe Biden method for Naval operations was to allow the Houthis to shoot as many missiles, rockets and drones they could muster against a mostly passive US fleet. Had the effect of burning up loads of munitions and risking ships for...no reason. (This board was 100% silent on that topic. It's hilarious there are some complaining now).
For those who've forgotten (conveniently), here's what Pentagon malpractice looks like:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-truman-h....
(Hopefully I don't need to explain why this was dumb squared. Again.)
This board also believes that the current Pentagon is stupid because you all hate Hegseth. That's fine. It's also a misunderstanding of how Pentagon planning and decision making are working, but whatever. If you don't think that US ships should be passive targets -and- you want the strait open by force, what would that entail? What would we have to do?
For one it would involve carpet bombing the sh1t out of the Iranian coast. That means heavy bombers. How many Iranians do you want to kill in the coastal areas? Then you'd need to clear mines. Upthread it was mentioned a few mine hits on US ships in the past along with missile strikes.
Why haven't we read about these things happening now? Because the Pentagon isn't as stupid as this board thinks it is: They had a plan to eliminate Iran's ability to get airplanes up to shoot at US forces. They can't lay mines at high rates, they have no subs and not much of anything other than the 2 dudes in their Zodiac. While some of you seem to be under the impression that amounts to a ton of firepower, in reality our two guys aren't going to be able to haul around large amounts of naval mines in the back of their speed boats. Their threat level also drops to close to zero the first time a merchant ship hands a bolt action .30-06 rifle to somebody who's a reasonably good shot. Of course they wouldn't hand over a Winchester would they? Would be more like a Barret .50 cal or better.
There *was* that awesome intimidating video of Iranian SEALs or whatever it was scaling a boarding ladder that somebody on the cargo ship helpfully dropped over the side for them to climb. Then they were let inside the ship they wanted to capture by another helpful crew member of the target ship. Yeah, that's not going to be happening at a large scale in the strait.
Everything the Pentagon has been doing was in the service of degrading Iran's ability to react to what we're doing and put our ships at risk. (Here's where someone starts chanting TACO or something).
The culmination of all this is the following:
We haven't forced open the strait because we haven't felt like we had to. And because we're not willing to de-populate Iran up to 10 miles from the water's edge.
-We have a blockade in place that's hurting Iran
-The "global economic crisis" so far hasn't materialized. You guys might ask yourselves where Japan for example is getting its oil from now.
No. of Recommendations: 8
....unless. Unless Trump has someone to blame. Someone whose fault it is that we "lost," someone his base can get behind and agree that they're the problem, not Trump. So it's great to see the first stirrings of "blame the Democrats" starting to emerge. If that takes hold, then we might be leading somewhere that Trump can find the political (and ego) cover to say that it's the Democrats' fault, not his. And then we can possibly escape the worst consequences of his folly...
As we know from following the MAGA posters on this Board, MAGA would fall for ANY excuse Diaper Don came up with. That’s a given. Diaper Don could blame Dope1, and every MAGA person would blame Dope1, even Dope1.
The problem is that Democrats, the vast majority of Independents, and some small number of Republicans wouldn’t buy it. He needs an excuse better than blaming the Democrats. He needs more coverage.
Diaper Don has to be a bit more creative. The most likely excuse would be to blame Kegsbreath and put him on the clothesline to hang out and dry. Can’t blame Bibi, he’d lose too much money. Maybe Jewish space lasers?
He could blame NATO, the damn welfare queens.
He could blame California, just because.
I just don’t see the Dems being a good scape goat in this scenario.
How about Jimmy Kimmel?
Wait, I got it! It’s the Pope’s fault. That’s a winner.
No. of Recommendations: 3
....unless. Unless Trump has someone to blame. Someone whose fault it is that we "lost," someone his base can get behind and agree that they're the problem, not Trump. So it's great to see the first stirrings of "blame the Democrats" starting to emerge. If that takes hold, then we might be leading somewhere that Trump can find the political (and ego) cover to say that it's the Democrats' fault, not his. And then we can possibly escape the worst consequences of his folly...
Of course that is Trump's standard MO. But how sad is that.
But still it could provide an end to this wasteful conflict.
The MAGA base will swallow the Trump blame game like they always do.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Right - that's why none of them would have ever signed off on this ill-advised adventure in the first place. The prior threat against Iran (if you hold the strait hostage it would start a war) was sufficient to keep Iran in check, but once we launched an attack on them anyway and killed all their leaders they had little to lose by going up the escalatory ladder.
So in other words they'd rather pretend the Iranians weren't developing a nuclear weapon, would rather look the other way at their ballistic missile programs, and just pray the Mullahs wouldn't wake up one day and hold their oil supply hostage.
<Tony Stark>
Not a great plan.
</Tony Stark>
They do have other parts of their economy, you know. Lots of economies in the world don't export oil. Iran had their oil exports driven down to only 0.4 mbpd back at the height of Trump's "maximum pressure" on sanctions back in the day, driving the oil sector below 3% of their economy - and they got by without being reduced to only fishing.
Well right now they're not importing or exporting much of anything. That's the problem with their talk about locking the strait up. That was always their Nuclear Option. Problem is, once you deploy your nuke you have nothing left (just like the mullahs right now). We flipped the script on them by saying "If the world can't have stuff through the straits, then neither can you".
You have no idea how relieved I am to hear you say this. Seriously.
Hey, I'm here to help! :)
No. of Recommendations: 10
-It's a race, isn't it? How long can Iran hold out? According to all of you the answer is "indefinitely". I don't believe that's realistic.
Reminds me of the two men being chased by a bear. First man says to the other: “This is no use. You can’t outrun a bear.”
Second man responds: “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you.”
Which reframes your question from:
“How long can Iran hold out?”
to
“Which of us can hold out the longest?”
Here's a counter question for you: Why isn't oil at $200 a barrel and rising? Why, despite the strait being closed for ~6 weeks or whatever it is, has the price of oil largely stabilized in the mid $90s?
Many reasons, none of which will be improved by time:
In the first month- arrival at destinations by tankers that left the gulf before hostilities
Drawdown of strategic reserves
Draw down of above ground storage
Some contraction of demand
Trump’s jawboning of markets and promises of an imminent deal
Oil markets DID seem to stabilize in initial weeks, but now are starting to rise again.
WTI for immediate delivery today- 100 dollars
Brent Crude is at 110.
What really surprised me initially was the differential between front months contracts and forward month contracts in the COMEX futures.
Right after Trump started this war, all months jumped in price, but the near term immediately rose much further than the months further out.
Interpretation: traders expected a short war, with prices returning to normal in a few months.
But now, reality intrudes, and a contract six months out is much closer in price to the front month.
Interpretation: traders now expect the war to continue longer than they did a few weeks ago. They’re no longer willing to put their money on the happy talk emanating from the White House. (Why they did to begin with, I’ll never know)
The price crunch is coming, dope.
No. of Recommendations: 10
So in other words they'd rather pretend the Iranians weren't developing a nuclear weapon, would rather look the other way at their ballistic missile programs, and just pray the Mullahs wouldn't wake up one day and hold their oil supply hostage.
No. They'd rather engage in the sort of measures that might actually restrain those activities, rather than launching a shooting war. Just because the status quo ante was bad doesn't make Trump's response to that prior condition smart, or effective. And it doesn't mean that other countries (and past Presidents) who were smart enough to realize that invading Iran isn't going to make things better were "pretending that Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon," rather than (correctly) deciding that invading Iran posed a real risk of imposing massive costs.
Well right now they're not importing or exporting much of anything. That's the problem with their talk about locking the strait up. That was always their Nuclear Option. Problem is, once you deploy your nuke you have nothing left (just like the mullahs right now). We flipped the script on them by saying "If the world can't have stuff through the straits, then neither can you".
I think that's inaccurate. The difference between the Strait and a Nuke is that you can re-open the Strait. So it still gives you leverage, even though you've closed it - because you still have something your opponent wants. If you drop a nuke on them, you can't "undrop" the nuke and bring the target back unharmed. You no longer have any leverage. But if you've closed the strait, that closure is ongoing, so they have the ability to re-open it.
Imposing our own blockade isn't flipping the script on them - we still suffer all the damage that we were suffering before, with physical crude prices for immediate delivery hitting $140-150 per barrel and wildly diverging from futures prices. Plus the fertilizer and natgas and other products that Iran isn't really in the business of exporting, but which are held up. It certainly puts Iran in a worse posture than if the strait were closed to everyone but them, of course. Again, not sure that's going to change the dynamic all that much. But then again, Trump has tweeted that Iran has informed him that they're in a state of collapse...so maybe it's working? Trump wouldn't just say something like that if the Iranians hadn't actually taken the trouble to inform him that they were in a state of collapse, after all.
No. of Recommendations: 15
That's been the winning move against the United States since the North Vietnamese demonstrated how to do it in the late 1960's to early 1970's. You mean by not surrendering when the big US army came to town? Or when the big US Air Force was dropping millions of tons of munitions on their heads?
What is the winning move, in your opinion? To say “OK, we give up”.
???
This is hard for some people to understand, but in a war the most frequent outcome is that one side wins and the other side loses, and it FAIRLY FREQUENTLY is not decided by “who has the biggest canons.” There are dozens of examples of the little guy triumphing over the larger, more well supplied force.
Oh, that someone on the Conservative side of the fence would ever read a book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_victories_a...
No. of Recommendations: 1
This board also believes that the current Pentagon is stupid because you all hate Hegseth. That's fine. It's also a misunderstanding of how Pentagon planning and decision making are working, but whatever. If you don't think that US ships should be passive targets -and- you want the strait open by force, what would that entail? What would we have to do?
Keggy is stupid because he is worthless. Spankee calls the shots--and he is REALLY incompetent AND incompetent, with ZERO ability to see beyond a cheeseburger or chicken. Same for Just Dunce.
The Pentagon military can NOT do what needs to be done. There is ZERO "rational" thinking about a specific (set of) realistic objective(s), so the Pentagon is unable to act.
The US does NOT have enough munitions to clear a large coastal area in Iran. So, that means GROUND TROOPS. DRAFT MAGA !!
And there goes MAGA, going for their guns and ammo to shoot Spankee and anybody else who wants to draft them or their kids and send them to Iran.
Pretty close to "the shores of Tripoli", though. AND "sunny tropic scenes" !! LOL !!! The problem is MAGA is NEVER "on the job". They ARE "on welfare", though !!!
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump’s jawboning of markets and promises of an imminent dealSpeaking of white, apparently posted just before market open this morning:
Iran has just informed us that they are in a “State of Collapse.” They want us to “Open the Hormuz Strait,” as soon as possible, as they try to figure out their leadership situation (Which I believe they will be able to do!). Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMPhttps://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116...The same "peace is at hand" drivel he has put forward, every few days, since he started the war, and posted at 9:29 this morning. He was probably trying to push a stock up, or down, for profit. His constant declaring "winning" is what is keeping futures down. Right now, WTI futures are at $100.22 and Brent is at $111.60, on faith that God and Savior Trump will restore the normal flow of oil in a few months, in spite of him saying, out loud, paying high prices for fuel is "worth it" to be saved from the Iranian boogyman.
It will be interesting to see what happens when all the oil that was at sea when the war started, has been delivered and consumed, and the national crude reserves have been drawn down, and there is nothing left to mitigate the disruption in supply. Most likely, we Proles will get socked between the eyes. But that won't matter, because we are expendable meat. His nibs, and his cronies, will make a fortune.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
expendable meat
Start by processing MAGA followers.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Speaking of white, apparently posted just before market open this morning:
Iran has just informed us that they are in a “State of Collapse.” They want us to “Open the Hormuz Strait,” as soon as possible, as they try to figure out their leadership situation (Which I believe they will be able to do!). Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP So curious. Because the banner headline in today’s WSJ is
“ Trump Tells Aides to Prepare for Extended Blockade of Iran
The president prefers decisive victories, but none of the available options provides him with a swift exit from the conflict
President [Trump] has instructed aides to prepare for an extended blockade of Iran, U.S. officials said, targeting the regime’s coffers in a high-risk bid to compel a nuclear capitulation Tehran has long refused.
In recent meetings, including a Monday discussion in the Situation Room, Trump opted to continue [squeezing Iran’s economy] and oil exports by preventing shipping to and from its ports. He assessed that his other options—resume bombing or walk away from the conflict—carried more risk than maintaining the blockade, officials said.
Yet continuing [the blockade] also prolongs a conflict that has driven up gas prices, hurt Trump’s poll numbers and further darkened Republicans’ prospects in the [midterm elections]. It has also caused the [lowest number of transits] through the Strait of Hormuz since the war began. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-tells-...I started a thread about it on the Macroeconomics board, but it seems appropriate here too, especially in light of the two statements emanating from the White House which are 180° opposite each other.
No. of Recommendations: 2
...in light of the two statements emanating from the White House which are 180° opposite each other.
All too typical of this bi-polar POTUS.
No. of Recommendations: 9
The impasse as I see it is that Trump will insist that Iran at a minimum surrender their uranium. Iran has seen what happened to Libya and Qadaffi when they surrendered their missile and fissile development program.
As Hillary stated, "we came, we saw, he died".
There was a signed accord guaranteeing non-intervention. We are not the most trustworthy negotiators. I would not negotiate with us were I them.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The impasse as I see it is that Trump will insist that Iran at a minimum surrender their uranium. Iran has seen what happened to Libya and Qadaffi when they surrendered their missile and fissile development program.
Israel wants the Iranian regime crushed and the country tipped into perpetual civil war, so it can't do anything to resist Israel's ambition. My sense is all this "negotiating" is nothing but a kabuki dance to give the appearance that "peace is at hand", to prevent the markets crashing at the realization how severe the oil shortage is.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
none of the available options provides him with a swift exit from the conflict
He can always do a Nixon exit. Just because it is NOT LISTED is irrelevant.
No. of Recommendations: 4
When I first saw the jet ski torpedo it was a chef kiss moment of irregular warfare.
Red Dawn is cool, when you’re the Wolverines.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Iran has seen what happened to Libya and Qadaffi when they surrendered their missile and fissile development program.
There's also the Iraq/Hussein cautionary tale. We told Hussein he had to get rid of all his WMD's, and he did get rid of them. But then we invaded and overthrew the government anyway. It's impossible to prove a negative, particularly to someone who is determined to believe you're lying about it.
It's the folly of trying to have "Iran never gets a nuke" as the objective of this war. If you believe that Iran can restart their nuclear ambitions without being detected by the IAEA (as Trump clearly does, given the abrogation of the prior agreement), then how can you ever know that you're getting an enforceable promise from them? And if you don't believe that you're getting an enforceable promise from them, what assurance could they ever have that you're not going to one day just decide they're lying and have a secret program?
No. of Recommendations: 6
It's impossible to prove a negative, particularly to someone who is determined to believe you're lying about it.
Needs to be repeated- over and over
No. of Recommendations: 11
To sum up:
Military experts say that Iran's military is largely intact.
But a senile pedophile who can't stay awake at meetings says Iran's military capacity has been completely destroyed by American's maximum lethality!
For low-information MAGAs, it can be hard to know who to trust.
No. of Recommendations: 0
But a senile pedophile who can't stay awake at meetings says Iran's military capacity has been completely destroyed by American's maximum lethality!
For low-information MAGAs, it can be hard to know who to trust.
Very easy to fix that problem.
If "lethality" has been resolved, then General Barron will LEAD THE CHARGE !!
If he does NOT LEAD THE CHARGE, three guesses why he does NOT....
