Post New

US military officials said three fighter jets crashed in Kuwait after being hit by friendly fire from Kuwaiti air defenses, the first downing of US aircraft since the US-Israeli war against Iran began over the weekend.

All six of the crew from the three F-15 jets ejected and parachuted to the ground before being located by rescuers, US Central Command said in a statement on March 2.

Huh.

Whiskey Pete shot down our own anti-drone drone, and now Kuwait is shooting down American jets. But how do these things keep happening, the guy looked so good on Fox 'News,' dontchaknow?




https://www.rferl.org/a/us-kuwait-jets-crash-frien...

Whiskey Pete shot down our own anti-drone drone,

When was that? Kegstand has a presser on now. Wonder if he'll mention the loss of the planes. At least no more U.S. lives were lost. This time, anyway.

Too bad Saddam's sons aren't in Kuwait having a good time with the Emir's Wives.

US military officials said three fighter jets crashed in Kuwait after being hit by friendly fire from Kuwaiti air defenses, the first downing of US aircraft since the US-Israeli war against Iran began over the weekend.

Damn, I did not have “Shoot down 3 of your own jet fighter planes” on my What Could Go Wrong When Morons Start a War bingo card.

Amazing how the ghouls jump on accidents like this. Don’t call them anti American for rooting for more of it.

But how do these things keep happening, the guy looked so good on Fox 'News,' dontchaknow?

He handed the other controller to "I LOVE BEER" Kavanaugh.

I did not have “Shoot down 3 of your own jet fighter planes” on my What Could Go Wrong When Morons Start a War bingo card.

Give them time. They will get the count much higher....

Amazing how the ghouls jump on accidents like this.

This wasn’t an accident, it was a major fuckup that could have been avoided if competent people were in charge.

No doubt Hegseth fired an extremely competent person who knew how to avoid getting our planes shot down by an ally and replaced them with a knuckle dragging MAGA hat wearing moron (apologies for all the redundancies).

Thankfully, our pilots weren’t killed.

US military officials said three fighter jets crashed in Kuwait after being hit by friendly fire from Kuwaiti air defenses,

Well…. This is a new one. Kegseth most likely forgot to make sure “friend or foe” transponders were synched with allies’ air defenses.

One of those little details so easy to overlook.

One of those little details so easy to overlook.

Amazingly bad comment.

Especially after 3-ish days of thousands of sorties, complete destruction of IrN’s air defense system, ruination of its Navy and Air Force plus a complete decapitation if its leadership structure.

Any reasonably objective mind has to tip its cap to Razin’ Caine and Hegseth, but we don’t have those here.

Amazingly bad comment.

Especially after 3-ish days of thousands of sorties, complete destruction of IrN’s air defense system, ruination of its Navy and Air Force plus a complete decapitation if its leadership structure.

That’s simply a horseshit excuse, Dope, and you know it.

When was the last time we lost three fighter jets in one day to friendly fire?

Unless it turns out Kuwaiti AA batteries were manned by Iranian agents, this is a huge screw-up.

“Someone forgot to turn their transponder back on” might work as an excuse for one plane. But three? Simultaneously?

This is the kind of thing that happens when war planners have no idea what they are doing.

This is the kind of thing that happens when war planners have no idea what they are doing.

Again, amazingly bad.

I’m just shaking my head.

Again, amazingly bad.

I’m just shaking my head.

Why? The U.S. hasn't had a fighter shot down since (I believe) the Iraq war after 9/11. To have three fighters shot down in a single day is pretty bad, and worse by the fact that it was friendly fire - which is presumably an outcome that should always be avoidable through proper planning and coordination. No matter what else happens (and the first few days of the exercise have otherwise gone well), there's going to be a lot of investigation and Congressional hearings about how so monumental a mistake could have happened.

Any reasonably objective mind has to tip its cap to Razin’ Caine and Hegseth, but we don’t have those here.

Yep, the left here are a bunch of ghouls, they salivate with drool dripping down their chins
over any mishap by Trump and his cabinet even to the point of trying very hard to cover up their
glee of the death of our military. Their hate for President Trump is astounding.

Some of the left here are really into Trumps he said she said they said sex life->closet deviates.

Too bad Saddam's sons aren't in Kuwait having a good time with the Emir's Wives.

Don Jr. and Eric are reportedly working on their tans in Palm Beach.

Yep, the left here are a bunch of ghouls, they salivate with drool dripping down their chins
over any mishap by Trump and his cabinet even to the point of trying very hard to cover up their
glee of the death of our military. Their hate for President Trump is astounding.

Some of the left here are really into Trumps he said she said they said sex life->closet deviates.

Really, LM. There’s no need to put your perverse fantasies on display like that.

Why? The U.S. hasn't had a fighter shot down since (I believe) the Iraq war after 9/11. To have three fighters shot down in a single day is pretty bad, and worse by the fact that it was friendly fire - which is presumably an outcome that should always be avoidable through proper planning and coordination. No matter what else happens (and the first few days of the exercise have otherwise gone well), there's going to be a lot of investigation and Congressional hearings about how so monumental a mistake could have happened.

You're misconstruing things.
I'm shaking my head at Bill's comments.

Obviously losing 3 jets at once is very bad. That should go without saying.

But to say that there was no planning here or poor planning is asinine. As in, completely ignorant. No one here knows what exactly happened.

But to say that there was no planning here or poor planning is asinine.

It is not asinine. But you are correct; “poor planning” is exactly my point.

Communication protocols and insuring deconfliction among allied units is part and parcel of successful military planning.

Pete Kegseth has an ongoing problem with “communication”, going all the way back to his Signalgate broohaha.

Apparently, communication protocols are for suckers.

Two days ago, a U.S. military laser shot down a DHS drone on our southern border.

There it is, again.

Or should I say “over and over again”.

And then there were those military helicopters in Washington DC commercial airspace.

Over and over AND OVER again.

It is not asinine. But you are correct; “poor planning” is exactly my point.

From what I have seen, so far, the 15s were patrolling for drones and missiles to shoot down. A Kuwaiti Patriot battery, set on automatic, locked on to them.

...and Kegsbreath had a hissy fit because the AI company's rules said their system could not be used to run weapons systems without human intervention.

Steve

It is not asinine.

Asinine. With a capital A.

You hate Trump. We get that. But it doesn't happen to be relevant to anything.

You're aware that the Iranians have been shooting missiles at the Kuwaitis this entire time, right?

And then there were those military helicopters in Washington DC commercial airspace.

Over and over AND OVER again.

What are you on about here?
That crash was pilot error. The pilot busted the altitude restriction and the FAA never should have allowed that kind of flight path, a problem that has been there for years.

But to say that there was no planning here or poor planning is asinine. As in, completely ignorant. No one here knows what exactly happened.

There's a doctrine in the law called res ipsa loquitor, which literally means "the thing speaks for itself" in latin. Basically, it means that if something happens that is so fundamentally not supposed to happen without something terribly gone wrong, there is a presumption that something has gone terribly wrong. In other words, in the most common context it means that when something happens that should not have happened without someone being negligent, the court/jury is allowed to presume that someone has been negligent.

If three fighter jets get shot down from friendly fire, and that's something that should not happen absent some failure of planning or coordination or something on the part of the military, then it's rational for us to presume that there has been some failure of planning or coordination or something. Of course we won't know for quite some time, but that's a fair starting point for so unusual an occurrence - if three fighters get shot down by your ally, something has gone really wrong that should not have.

Contrary to LM's rather strident assertion, there's nothing ghoulish about pointing this out as a possible problem with how the Administration approached the run-up to the war. You've had far less public activity in assembling a "Coalition of the Whatever" compared to our last two major military operations in the theater. It's not out of line to note that this is a major failure in the conduct of the initial operation.

Contrary to LM's rather strident assertion, there's nothing ghoulish about pointing this out as a possible problem with how the Administration approached the run-up to the war. You've had far less public activity in assembling a "Coalition of the Whatever" compared to our last two major military operations in the theater. It's not out of line to note that this is a major failure in the conduct of the initial operation.

LM was spot on. There are folks practically GLEEFUL about the shootdowns. And eager to either jump to conclusions not supported by data.

You guys are speculating and your comment above also lands in the Bad category.

For one thing, you're conflating the *political* alignment with the *military* one. Do you honestly believe that US and Kuwaiti forces have never worked together before? Do you think we've never cross-trained with them? Are you aware that the Iranians have been shooting missiles at Kuwait for ~60 hours now? How much rest are their Patriot crews getting?

Etc. Etc.

Immediately chalking up an incident in one of the most complex air assaults ever attempted as "poor planning" is flat out ignorance. The level of coordination involved here is off the charts insane. You guys really need to read up a lot more on what all goes into this stuff.


BTW For those interested here's video of one of the fliers being picked up by some Kuwaitis. She was okay:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/952015630805261

"poor planning" is flat out ignorance.

Correct. It is malfeasance and dereliction of duty by Spankee, Kegseth, and others.

The level of coordination involved here is off the charts insane.

For Spankee, Kegseth, etc it is IMPOSSIBLE. For real military personnel, it is SOP. I don't SAY so. Previous attacks by the US did NOT incur those types of professional military failures.

There are folks practically GLEEFUL about the shootdowns.

Really? What has someone posted that indicates that they are GLEEFUL about the shootdowns? I might have missed where someone expressed joy, delight, happiness or any other "gleeful" emotion about the fact that we had three planes shot down.

Immediately chalking up an incident in one of the most complex air assaults ever attempted as "poor planning" is flat out ignorance. The level of coordination involved here is off the charts insane.

No doubt a massive amount of coordination is involved here - but I'm not sure why you think that negates the possibility, and perhaps the likelihood, that this resulted from poor planning. For example, the amount of engineering that goes into the structural design and planning of a modern skyscraper is off the charts insane - and if a skyscraper were to simply collapse, people would - correctly - point out that the collapse was due to "poor engineering."

Just because something is incredibly complex and requires off-the-charts planning doesn't mean that there can't be poor planning. You can have poor planning in complex scenarios and in simple scenarios. If you know what you're doing is insanely complicated, you know it's going to require insanely complicated planning - and if you don't do that planning to the level required, you will have planned poorly.

No doubt a massive amount of coordination is involved here - but I'm not sure why you think that negates the possibility, and perhaps the likelihood, that this resulted from poor planning. For example, the amount of engineering that goes into the structural design and planning of a modern skyscraper is off the charts insane - and if a skyscraper were to simply collapse, people would - correctly - point out that the collapse was due to "poor engineering."

People who don't know anything about engineering would think that. Thanks for proving my point.
Was there a recent earthquake?
Were the materials defective?
Was there a recent flood that compromised the soil underneath the foundation?
Etc. Etc.

Same thing here.

Which is why these posts are asinine. Nobody knows anything, so rushing to judge "the planning" is silly. Especially after almost 3 days of insanely coordinated action.

No doubt Hegseth fired an extremely competent person who knew how to avoid getting our planes shot down by an ally and replaced them with a knuckle dragging MAGA

„Everyone important is on our Signal executive chat. We even checked no journalists eavesdropped this time round! What else do you want?“

Nobody knows anything, so rushing to judge "the planning" is silly.

I know something. Three United States advanced fighter planes were shot down by friendly fire.

I also know that something royally screwed up because this is unheard of in modern aerial warfare.

Speaking of rushing to judge, weren’t you the guy who proclaiming that Democrats would riot after Trump won the last election AND that Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists before their bodies were cold?

People who don't know anything about engineering would think that. Thanks for proving my point.

I thought that it would be understood that this is an "other things being equal" scenario. If there had been an earthquake or a recent flood or an airplane crashing into the building, of course you wouldn't conclude it was due to an engineering problem.

But if there isn't anything like that - if the building just fell down on a clear day - then it would not at all be irrational to consider that an engineering failure might be a likely culprit. Which is what we're looking at here. There doesn't appear to have been anything that would be analogous to a recent flood or earthquake. Iran didn't do anything to the Kuwaiti systems. So this is more analogous to the "clear day" collapse, rather than something where there's an immediately obvious likely intervening factor.

Again, we'll know more after the Congressional inquests are over. But I don't think there's any reason for your "head shakes" over this point.

I also notice that you didn't provide any examples of posters here being GLEEFUL about these strikes. It's only been a day or so. Were you unable to find the ones you were recalling?

Which is what we're looking at here. There doesn't appear to have been anything that would be analogous to a recent flood or earthquake. Iran didn't do anything to the Kuwaiti systems. So this is more analogous to the "clear day" collapse, rather than something where there's an immediately obvious likely intervening factor.

El wrong-o. They've been firing missiles into Kuwait:
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/iran-attacks-smoke...

So the Kuwaiti antiair folks have been on alert for some time now.
BTW "clear day" collapses happen usually due to some external factor. Your analogy ain't working, my friend.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article3092...
The team is focusing on three “higher-likelihood” hypotheses out of its initial 12, each arising from construction flaws that doomed the building. The collapse could have been triggered by failure of a slab-column connection in the pool deck, where the structural design did not meet building code standards. Steel reinforcement was missing or misplaced and eaten away by corrosion. Heavy planters and pavers added years later to the poorly-draining deck increased the load on a support system “that was already functionally and structurally inadequate,” the report says. Prolonged exposure to water in the parking garage, where residents had complained about flooding and ponding, corroded steel bars and degraded concrete in the basement columns that were not built to proper strength. Those brittle columns or the failure of a slab-beam-column joint in the southeast part of the tower, close to the pool deck, could have been the cause of the collapse.

Even "clear day" events have root causes.

But I don't think there's any reason for your "head shakes" over this point.

Plenty of them, actually. This board has several bad takes that turn into "accepted fact" when in reality they're just...really bad takes to begin with. Such as the conflating of the political and military preparation, for example. Do you think that Kuwaiti forces and the US Air Force have never worked together before?

I also notice that you didn't provide any examples of posters here being GLEEFUL about these strikes. It's only been a day or so. Were you unable to find the ones you were recalling?

I was referring to the immediate jumping to ""poor planning"" and general dumping on Hegseth absent any evidence whatsoever. You did it yourself, in fact.

The coordination and planning that has gone into these strikes has been remarkable. That this board is unwilling to even ack 1/1000th of it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Speaking of rushing to judge, weren’t you the guy who proclaiming that Democrats would riot after Trump won the last election AND that Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists before their bodies were cold?

You're zero for 3 here in your attempt to White Knight for the others.

1. democrats did riot. First over immigration in general then with very specific anti-ICE riots. Based on their past history this was a no-brainer.

2. Good put herself in a bad position and is responsible for her death after she hit the officer with her car. That's all on her.

3. I haven't said much about Pretti and never called him anything because the fact pattern on that one was much less clear.

As I said. Zero for 3. But thanks for using me as an example on using past data to generate hypotheses (item #1), draw conclusions when the data is conclusive (item #2), and wait for more information when the situation is unclear (item #3).

Try it sometime. Like now.

I also notice that you didn't provide any examples of posters here being GLEEFUL about these strikes.

It’s the go to response of many right wing posters: when service personnel die because a Republican administration screws up, an effective deflection is to blame those who point out the tragedy and its apparent cause- of being “gleeful” at the deaths of service personnel.

As the deaths add up, we’ll be seeing this charge over and over again.

And woe be it for anyone to keep track of how many deaths have occurred. That’s verboten and will get you labeled as a “death cheerer” faster than anything.


They’d rather keep the deaths a secret. Not right now. The numbers are still relatively low. But we KNOW, without a shadow of doubt, what this administration does with information it doesn’t want the public to see.
(Epstein files, anyone?)

Just like Hitler did with information concerning VonPaulus’ Sixth Army in Stalingrad.

The scope of the failure will be softened, and wrapped in an American flag. All to hide the goat rodeo that this “limited bombing campaign” will soon become, in fact, is already becoming.

There will be plenty of videos of exploding Iranian assets, many claims of success, but with limited treatment of the failures which will mount in frequency and in scope as the weeks progress….. until the obvious can no longer be hidden…. and then the failures will be blamed on everyone but themselves.

You don’t need a crystal ball to see this. They established the pattern long ago and will follow the script to the bitter end.

The coordination and planning that has gone into these strikes has been remarkable. That this board is unwilling to even ack 1/1000th of it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Oh, I think that the military execution of the attack plan has been quite good, as far as it goes. We seem to have had good intelligence on the whereabouts of our targets and have struck them forcefully without any problems.

I'm not sure why you think that would lead anyone to "back 1/1000th" of it (I assume the intended word was to "back" it), based on that basis. The reason that past Presidents from Reagan to Biden (and Trump v. 1.0) have not decapitated Iranian leadership or military capabilities haven't really been because we lacked the ability to effectively use air power to attack them, but because the consequences of doing so are wildly uncontrollable. Moreso if you only use air power and don't actually invade with ground troops, which would likely be a necessary (though as Iraq has taught us not sufficient) condition for being able to control developments in the country.

I think it was a foolhardy move to attack Iran like this, and that doesn't really change simply because the attack was well executed.

I think it was a foolhardy move to attack Iran like this

A significant understatement.

But it does successfully put Epstein on the back burner.

And it does establish the conditions that Trump thinks allow him to further tighten the screws on dissent in this country.

The reason that past Presidents from Reagan to Biden (and Trump v. 1.0) have not decapitated Iranian leadership or military capabilities haven't really been because we lacked the ability to effectively use air power to attack them, but because the consequences of doing so are wildly uncontrollable.

That isn't the only reason. Some Presidents decided that Iran could be contained (Reagan, Bush41). Others sought to appease Iran (Obama, Biden). Still others didn't want to overextend by taking on Iran and others likely overestimated their capabilities (Bush43).

Moreso if you only use air power and don't actually invade with ground troops, which would likely be a necessary (though as Iraq has taught us not sufficient) condition for being able to control developments in the country.

Iraq isn't Iran. Far from it. It's amazing to me how people are missing this.
There won't be an "invasion" the way some people seem to think, with 500k troops rolling in. No, any "boots on the ground" are likely to be Green Berets working with Mossad types to identify locals who want to work with us.

I've already seen video of a bunch of IRGC thugs on motorcycles being hit with a roadside bomb and blown to smithereens. Ironic, no?

Adjust your thinking here: In the case of Iran, the US would create/aid the insurgency. Not be the focus of it. Big difference, yes?.

And if the Mullahs are busy trying to stay in power, how much ability do they have to project power outside of their borders? Is it the same or does it go down?

I think it was a foolhardy move to attack Iran like this, and that doesn't really change simply because the attack was well executed.

That's not surprising. But thanks for taking care of the earlier gripe about ""poor planning"". Great execution is a function good planning.
As I've told you, it's a part of a larger plan with China as the goal. When, not if you dispute that you should ask yourself how many of their main ally pool of Russia/North Korea/Cuba/South Africa/Venezuela/Iran are still fairly healthy. Then once you've crossed 2 of those off your list you might ask yourself how well Chinese equipment is performing.

Then you might ask yourself who gets hurt a lot if Iran lashes out and manages to close the straits of Hormuz. And then you might ask yourself where the country that's being hurt by this would go for a backup. And then you might ask yourself a few more questions...like, what is that country going to do if that backup isn't there.

Or you might not.

Good put herself in a bad position and is responsible for her death after she hit the officer with her car.

Nope. Ross committed murder.

I think it was a foolhardy move to attack Iran like this, and that doesn't really change simply because the attack was well executed.

I believe it is an axiom in law that you don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

In this case, my question is "who will take over in Iran"? Best case, it's the people celebrating in the streets. Worst case, it's another radical cleric and/or leader of the Revolutionary Guard. We don't know that answer. I don't think we really have a clue. It seems someone has thought that far ahead, or at least we haven't seen any evidence of it so far.

And I still question the legality of it, given Congress' actions to revoke such authority (I think last summer). In which case, all the generals/admirals that obeyed those orders were obeying illegal orders.

In this case, my question is "who will take over in Iran"? Best case, it's the people celebrating in the streets. Worst case, it's another radical cleric and/or leader of the Revolutionary Guard. We don't know that answer. I don't think we really have a clue. It seems someone has thought that far ahead, or at least we haven't seen any evidence of it so far.

Someone has thought that through. You guys never really understood what happened in Venezuela.

Best case: The Iranian people overthrow the Mullahs and establish any kind of other government.
Worst case: The Mullahs stay in charge.

Worst part of the best case? The new government isn't super friendly to the US (unlikely).
Best part of the wrost case? The Mullahs' military and industry warmaking capabilities are severely degrades and will tkae years to rebuild.

You guys are all in on Ukraine/Putin. Hilariously, nobody seems to be stopping and thinking what happens when we bomb the Shahed factories and storage areas.

And I still question the legality of it, given Congress' actions to revoke such authority (I think last summer). In which case, all the generals/admirals that obeyed those orders were obeying illegal orders.

Yeah, not really. The War Powers Act has entered the chat.

Iraq isn't Iran. Far from it. It's amazing to me how people are missing this.
There won't be an "invasion" the way some people seem to think, with 500k troops rolling in. No, any "boots on the ground" are likely to be Green Berets working with Mossad types to identify locals who want to work with us.

That's why it's foolhardy. That's extremely unlikely to be sufficient for us to shape events in Iran. We're just throwing the dice on this as to what happens going forward - whether the existing regime survives, whether the country devolves into chaos, or what. Right now, the future of Iran going forward is likely to be left entirely to chance and forces outside of our control.

I do agree that this isn't Iraq. Trump seems perfectly content to ignore the "You break it, you bought it" rule, and just wash his hands of everything in a month or so regardless of how it turns out.

But thanks for taking care of the earlier gripe about ""poor planning"". Great execution is a function good planning.

But that doesn't really "take care" of the earlier gripe, because great execution of some parts of the mission doesn't mean that all of the mission was well-planned.

As I've told you, it's a part of a larger plan with China as the goal. When, not if you dispute that you should ask yourself how many of their main ally pool of Russia/North Korea/Cuba/South Africa/Venezuela/Iran are still fairly healthy. Then once you've crossed 2 of those off your list you might ask yourself how well Chinese equipment is performing.

Then you might ask yourself who gets hurt a lot if Iran lashes out and manages to close the straits of Hormuz. And then you might ask yourself where the country that's being hurt by this would go for a backup. And then you might ask yourself a few more questions...like, what is that country going to do if that backup isn't there.

Oh, I think China is going to come out of this smelling like a rose. If not in better shape than before. In the very short term, they've been managing their energy needs to plan for and prepare for constant geopolitical interruptions in oil supply - diversifying their energy providers, building up massive reserves, and promoting renewable energy. They can do just fine through short term interruptions. They also know that the U.S. isn't going to let Hormuz stay closed for more than a short time, even if Iran manages to pull that off. They don't need a back-up.

The other near-term consequences are beneficial to them. Trivially, the U.S. is burning many billions of dollars in military expenditures in the Middle East which resources will not be available for other uses. It's pulled focus from Venezuela, which allows their allies there to dig in and protect themselves against being dislodged by a regime more friendly to them. If there are disruptions to Iran's actual oil output, those can be readily replaced by other petrostates modestly increasing their production and replacing Iranian exports - OPEC has tons of slack capacity, created by some 3 million bpd in production cuts implemented over the last year or so.

Long-term, many of the possible outcomes of "regime change" in Iran actually work to their favor. The most likely outcome is either the existing regime continues or they're replaced by another faction that's equally friendly to China. Because the Administration will need to declare victory, the most likely outcome is that Iran emerges free of sanctions (just like Venezuela) and open for business with Iran in a way they were deeply hindered before. With Russia (Iran's prior main patron) now sidelined by Ukraine, it's a world of opportunity for Chinese energy companies to really get in and develop a solid energy source - and foster a relationship with a new government that has fewer historical ties to Russian patronage and will be relying on Chinese money.

We're likely to just be replacing a very problematic partner for China with a far better one for them, on our own dime. Hopefully it doesn't work out that way. Hopefully we pull an inside straight and a government emerges that is not: i) the existing regime; ii) a faction of the existing regime that's still hostile to the U.S.; iii) a stalemate between multiple factions that are hostile to the U.S.; or iv) chaos and failed state. It's possible, and I hope for our sake that's what happens - but I think it's phenomenally foolish for us to have hoped that this would work without some sort of plan for making it happen.

We're likely to just be replacing a very problematic partner for China with a far better one for them, on our own dime. Hopefully it doesn't work out that way. Hopefully we pull an inside straight and a government emerges that is not: i) the existing regime; ii) a faction of the existing regime that's still hostile to the U.S.; iii) a stalemate between multiple factions that are hostile to the U.S.; or iv) chaos and failed state.

Every day that passes, more Iranians die at the hands of US/Israeli forces. Most of the soon-to-die have families, that will remember. That will not engender warm feelings of good will among the population for the US/Israeli interests. That would make "ii" the most likely scenario, if an organized government emerges.

Will a non-hostile, organized government emerge, without the US/Israel forcing "Prince Reza" down their throat, in a replay of 56? Doubt it.

"Hope" that it will all work out for the best, is not a strategy.

I'm betting on "iv", chaotic failed state, as that will cut oil supply from the market, for the benefit of other interests, ie a replay of Libya.

Steve

That's why it's foolhardy. That's extremely unlikely to be sufficient for us to shape events in Iran.

Yeah, whacking their entire command structure is unlikely to do anything.

We're just throwing the dice on this as to what happens going forward - whether the existing regime survives, whether the country devolves into chaos, or what. Right now, the future of Iran going forward is likely to be left entirely to chance and forces outside of our control.

You missed the point.
The point for both Iran and Venezuela isn't Iran and Venezuela. The point is to isolate China and make life tougher for them. Which we've done, bigly.
One, two well placed bombs on Iran's oil terminals and *poof* goes 15% of China's oil imports.

Trump seems perfectly content to ignore the "You break it, you bought it" rule, and just wash his hands of everything in a month or so regardless of how it turns out.

We don't necessarily care who is running either country so long as they're not causing trouble in the region. THAT's the point.

Oh, I think China is going to come out of this smelling like a rose.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Sure.

They also know that the U.S. isn't going to let Hormuz stay closed for more than a short time, even if Iran manages to pull that off. They don't need a back-up.

Sure, okay. They'll just watch as portions of the economy suffer. LOL!

We're likely to just be replacing a very problematic partner for China with a far better one for them, on our own dime.

Erm, okay.
For one, the current regime is plenty friendly to the Chinese. For two, the Chinese in your scenario get to spend a ton of money rebuilding a bunch of stuff that we've shown we can blow away any time we feel like it.

And for the biggest sigh of all:
but I think it's phenomenally foolish for us to have hoped that this would work without some sort of plan for making it happen.

You have zero idea of what planning went on. You'd think you guys would pick up on the fact pattern emerging here on what Trump is doing but allow me to spell it out: They're fighting little wars now to prevent (or at least delay) the bigger war later.

It really is that simple. If we followed the Obama/Biden policy of allowing Iran to keep developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and drone capability we would have let a vital Chinese ally keep destabilizing that part of the world and threaten to slice oil supplies to everyone else (not us, since Thank God we quit listening to the democrats and are doing way more domestic production).

What we're doing instead is knocking legs off of China's stool one at a time. Their main squeeze in South America? Gone. Their little squeezes in South America? Only Brazil and Columbia are left. They can kiss goodbye their space observation platforms in Argentina and Peru (yes, they have them). Pretty soon their sidepiece Cuba won't be there either. Their cartel allies (yes, they work with China)? Are also being degraded now. Finally.

So long to their ability to base and raise hell in the Western Hemisphere easily.

Now we're cutting their leg of the stool in the Middle East. No more drones to Putin for his Ukrainian war. No more rockets to Yemen or Lebanon for the Houthis and Hezbollah. So on and so forth.

I get you guys hate Trump. But the world is complex place and the sophomoric assumptions this board runs on aren't cutting it. The links between China and various bad actors around the globe are being cut one by one. And this is a GOOD thing for the US.

Flying military aircraft is ALWAYS an extremely high risk endeavor, especially in combat situations, likely in a very crowded airspace, both physically and electronically; but it's always high risk even if it's just a training flight.

The P.R. from the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels and top gun type movies emphasized the glamour.

Thank goodness no one was killed. I feel sorry for the Kuwaitis responsible for this, they probably feel terrible about it. Hopefully they don't get summarily executed.

Get these aircrews back in the saddle and back to blowing up Iranian stuff.

As soon as possible.

Yeah, whacking their entire command structure is unlikely to do anything.

The thing about military command structures, there is always another link in the chain of command. Recall, Kaddaffi was a Colonel. iirc, the Greek junta that overthrew the elected government was composed of Colonels as well. Seems the more corrupt a government, the more likely flag rank officers got there by sucking up to the big dogs, rather than operational competence. I would expect the same in Iran now. Remember how the flag rank officers bugged out when the Shah blew town, because they got there by sucking up to the Shah? That's why Saddam thought he could succeed against Iran, the generals were gone. Didn't work out that way.

Drill down a few levels in rank, and the Iranians may have some very sharp, motivated, and innovative, officers, that could mess up the ossified US structure the way General Van Riper did.

Steve

Yeah, whacking their entire command structure is unlikely to do anything.

I didn't say it wouldn't do anything. I said that we don't have much ability to shape what comes afterwards. If you want to have control over what replaces what you destroy, you can't do that with just air power. You would have to boots on the ground. And even then, consider the record. So we're mostly (if not entirely) leaving to chance and other forces what's going to happen here once we're done bombing.

The point for both Iran and Venezuela isn't Iran and Venezuela. The point is to isolate China and make life tougher for them. Which we've done, bigly.

But...have we? Again, we haven't changed the regime in Venezuela. We haven't made life tougher for China there. Maybe that's the goal going forward, but we haven't replaced the Venezuelan government with the opposition party, or a government more predisposed to be an ally of the U.S. Because we didn't have a replacement government on offer, we just kept the old one.

If we're limiting ourselves to air power, that's the most likely outcome in Iran right now as well - whoever comes after Khameini will be someone who's already got a considerable power base in the country and thus likely a part of the existing government. IOW, more on Team China than Team U.S.

Their main squeeze in South America? Gone.

Again - why do you keep thinking that any of this is true? We didn't change the government in Venezuela. We removed their leader, but the regime is otherwise entirely unchanged. How have they lost their main squeeze in South America? They lost influence in Argentina because the government in Argentina changed. But that didn't happen in Venezuela.

I think that's the argument that you keep overlooking. The Administration took out Maduro, but that doesn't change the government much, and may end up having minimal impact on their relations with China. We've taken out Khameini, and we don't know who will be in charge of Iran going forward - and it may very well be someone who is just as eager to have positive relations with China as Khameini.

But the world is complex place and the sophomoric assumptions this board runs on aren't cutting it. The links between China and various bad actors around the globe are being cut one by one.

I think you're making some sophomoric assumptions about what's happening between China and various bad actors around the globe. These links aren't being cut, because they aren't personal to the individual holding the head of state position. China had a strong position in Venezuela because that country was a far-left socialist government that used conflict with the United States to project legitimacy to its supporters. Now that Maduro is gone, it remains a far-left socialist government that will use conflict with the United States to project legitimacy to its supporters. We don't know what's going to happen with Iran, but as always the most likely outcome is that the existing regime or some faction of the existing regime will be running it once the dust has settled. And all of the same factors that led the prior Iranian government to forge strong ties with China will still be in place.

Damn, I did not have “Shoot down 3 of your own jet fighter planes” on my What Could Go Wrong When Morons Start a War bingo card.

Hmmm..number one ghoul plays Bingo games with American deaths, filling his card and yells BINGO!

Hmmm..number one ghoul plays Bingo games with American deaths, filling his card and yells BINGO!

None of the pilots died, thankfully.

I'm betting on "iv", chaotic failed state, as that will cut oil supply from the market, for the benefit of other interests, ie a replay of Libya.

I'm not sure Libya is the real model for that outcome, though. The oil still flows from Libya - production hit 1.4 million bpd last year, the highest since 2010:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LBYNGDPMOMBD

That's because Libya's a dysfunctional, but not chaotic, state. It's riven by a stalemate between two competing factions. That prevents it from having a functional national government or institutions. But it's not actual chaos, and it's in everyone's interest for oil production to continue.....so it does.

None of the pilots died,

Where do you see I mentioned pilots?

Recall, Kaddaffi was a Colonel. iirc, the Greek junta that overthrew the elected government was composed of Colonels as well.

It’s always struck me that military coups are so often led by “colonels”.

Where do you see I mentioned pilots?

You said that he was playing bingo games with American deaths. But his reference to the Bingo card was the shooting down of the planes. There were no American deaths associated with the downed planes.


(as an aside, the reference to something not being on their bingo card is a metaphor for something unexpected, not a literal expression of playing an actual bingo game with the thing in question nor that the topic is something appropriate for such a game.)

I didn't say it wouldn't do anything. I said that we don't have much ability to shape what comes afterwards.

Why do you think Trump and Bibi keep saying it's up to the Iranians themselves now? We've no interest in replacing Tehran's government; they have to do that themselves.

Again, the strategic goals are
(a) Severely degrade/Eliminate Iran's ability to project power and/or destabilize the region
(b) Further isolate China and remove one of their vassal states, further putting pressure on their energy supplies.

Both objectives appear to have been met. There may be others.

But...have we? Again, we haven't changed the regime in Venezuela. We haven't made life tougher for China there. Maybe that's the goal going forward, but we haven't replaced the Venezuelan government with the opposition party, or a government more predisposed to be an ally of the U.S. Because we didn't have a replacement government on offer, we just kept the old one.

Player, please. We waltzed into the middle of Venezuela and yanked their head of state away in the back of a helicopter. If we wanted to we could have killed him outright. We also eliminated some of the other more obnoxious henchmen he had down there.

Now it's Delcy Rodriguez's turn. Here's what's behind the doors for her:

Door #1: Keep pulling the same crap they've been pulling, and either get to read the serial numbers on a Hellfire missile right before it explodes -or- wind up in the jail wing next to Maduro.

Door #2: Keep her nose (relatively) clean, rebuff China and make noises/wave her hands in the direction of some kind of rational government in Venezuela...and maybe she gets to be a part of it.

One might say there's a Door #3 where she does the exact same things and we just sit there and do nothing about it. Is that right? Don't think that's an option here.

It's highly likely Rubio and co. have shown her what's behind Doors Number 1 and 2 and told her that it's in her best interest to take Door #2.

That's the same message that whoever takes over in Iran is going to get. Rational human beings take Door #2. If we get another Mullah in Iran, they'll take Door #1. In that case we need to see.

If we're limiting ourselves to air power, that's the most likely outcome in Iran right now as well - whoever comes after Khameini will be someone who's already got a considerable power base in the country and thus likely a part of the existing government. IOW, more on Team China than Team U.S.

LOL. You think there aren't people on the ground in Iran? You need to look into this deeper, hahahaha. I didn't think it was possible to penetrate a country as thoroughly as Mossad has Iran. As I've said, the Iranian people themselves get a vote. There are reports of at least one city kicking out the IRGC.

Again - why do you keep thinking that any of this is true? We didn't change the government in Venezuela. We removed their leader, but the regime is otherwise entirely unchanged. How have they lost their main squeeze in South America? They lost influence in Argentina because the government in Argentina changed. But that didn't happen in Venezuela.

You just refuse to believe anything, do you? Let me get this straight: You actually think we went through all the time and trouble of snatching Maduro and didn't have The Talk with Delcy right afterwards?

Here's one way of looking at it:
https://beijingpost.com/america-s-venezuela-oil-gr...

Washington says it will manage Venezuela’s oil sales and pricing while still allowing Chinese purchases—turning crude into a geopolitical control panel with global consequences.
The United States is signaling a new, unusually direct form of energy statecraft: controlling Venezuelan oil sales after the capture of Venezuela’s leader on January 3, while still allowing China to buy Venezuelan crude—so long as it’s priced at what U.S. officials call “fair market” levels and with a requirement that most volumes flow to the United States.

At face value, the policy tries to do three things at once: stabilize supply into U.S.-aligned channels, prevent discounted “debt-repayment pricing” that deepens China’s long-running energy foothold in Venezuela, and reset who gets to set terms in the Western Hemisphere’s most politically fraught oil story.

China has been Venezuela’s top oil buyer for years, including through debt-for-oil arrangements, so any forced repricing or routing of cargoes is not just a commercial tweak—it’s a strategic rebalance of influence.

The stakes extend beyond barrels.

Control over exports and pricing signals a broader trend: major powers increasingly treating commodity flows like governed infrastructure, not neutral trade.

I think this piece gets a lot of it right. No more China buying sanctioned oil and then moving it near Malaysia to count it as "Malaysian" oil, lol.

I think that's the argument that you keep overlooking. The Administration took out Maduro, but that doesn't change the government much, and may end up having minimal impact on their relations with China. We've taken out Khameini, and we don't know who will be in charge of Iran going forward - and it may very well be someone who is just as eager to have positive relations with China as Khameini.

No. You're arguing from the same assumption - that we just went and did things and didn't do any thinking of What Comes Next. I have no idea why you keep believing that literally everyone in Trump's government is a complete moron, but whatever. Weren't you just lecturing me on how it's super bad to assume others are complete idiots? There's far more evidence to indicate that AOC is partially brain dead than there is Rubio, Caine, or even Hegseth for that matter.

I think you're making some sophomoric assumptions about what's happening between China and various bad actors around the globe.

Am I, now. One of us is reacting to events as they unfold and the other one of us keeps repeating the same opening premise ("We didn't really accomplish anything in Venezuela and probably won't in Iran")_ <--- that's the essence of what you're saying.

Never mind we've eliminated Iran's nuclear program, command structure, Navy and Air Force and are working on their missile and drone capabilities now. Never mind that we're basically telling who Venezuela can sell oil to now (and taking the ghost fleet off the waves).

No offense, but you're standing in the forest telling me about the tree canopy while you bend over and study some fern growing a foot off the ground.

From the above link:
Operationally, the early mechanics look like a hybrid of enforcement and logistics: U.S. naval and legal actions against tankers, combined with efforts to channel Venezuelan crude through established trading houses and refiners, are already affecting shipping patterns and expectations for China’s near-term intake.

Meanwhile, analysts warn that controlling barrels is the easy part; rebuilding output, managing infrastructure, and sustaining legal legitimacy are the hard parts—and the economics may disappoint anyone expecting quick, clean gains.

That's right. China doesn't get to buy a bunch of oil at a discount any more. And it also ack's your point about rebuilding Venezuelan infrastructure.

Here's something else:
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/where-china-...

Look at Figure 1 and tell me who you *don't* see in this list of places China gets oil from. Then square that with this
The gap between Kpler’s data on China’s Iranian and Venezuelan crude imports and that of China’s GAC is because Iranian and Venezuelan barrels are relabeled to disguise their origins. Many Iranian and Venezuelan barrels that arrive in China are rebranded as Malaysian. China imports more “Malaysian” crude (1.3 million bpd in 2025) than Malaysia produces (535,000 bpd in 2024), and the waters off Malaysia are a hotbed of ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers.

Oh, and BTW.:
https://news.usni.org/2026/03/02/belgian-french-fo...

Belgian military forces, supported by the French military, seized a Russian shadow fleet oil tanker Saturday in the North Sea as part of operation “Blue Intruder.”

MT Ethera was intercepted in the Belgian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) while sailing under a false Guinea flag, according to a Belgian Ministry of Defense news release published Sunday. Ethera was not entitled to free passage through the Belgian EEZ because under international law, it is illegal for a ship to sail under a false flag or without a flag, the release reads. The Belgian government greenlit the boarding of the tanker.

“The ship was sailing under a false flag and is on the European Union’s sanctions list. These are serious indications of deliberate deception and possible sanctions evasion. When such indications arise in our exclusive economic zone, we take action,” Belgium’s Defense Minister Theo Francken said in the release.

A whole of folks are starting to be emboldened enough to actually enforce international law. Why do you suppose that is? Did the notoriously steely-backboned French and Belgians just look the other way or was there some other reason?

You said that he was playing bingo games with American deaths.

Right

But his reference to the Bingo card was the shooting down of the planes. There were no American deaths associated with the downed planes.

I said American Deaths being of no differential of how American military lives were lost.

And in support of my first objective for the US:
(a) Severely degrade/Eliminate Iran's ability to project power and/or destabilize the region

...Marco Rubio confirms my diagnosis:

We would love to see this regime be replaced. And ultimately, as the president has said... (unintelligible call from the press) No, let me finish my answer. As the president said, he would love for the people of Iran to use this as an opportunity to rise up and remove these leaders. They've been wanting to remove them for a long time. We've seen successive waves of protests. And we've seen them slaughter people. But the objective of this mission is to make sure they don't have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region.

That's why we're doing what we're doing now. And while we would love to see a new regime, the bottom line is, no matter who governs that country, a year from now, they're not going to have these ballistic missiles, and they're not going to have these drones to threaten us.

That's the objective of this mission. It's to deny them the ability to use ballistic missiles to threaten their neighbors, to threaten our bases, to threaten our presence in the region, and ultimately as a shield behind which they can do whatever they want with their nuclear weapons ambition. We were not going to let them hide behind that. And that's why this was such a critical mission to undertake now, while they were at their weakest point, and not a year from now, where they could inflict even more damage and perhaps already be behind that point of immunity.

Even George Will - who this board now loves because he loathes Trump - is now starting to get it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/01...

Some say that U.S. involvement in Iran constitutes a “war of choice.” That too casually bandied phrase rarely fits untidy reality. America’s Civil War was a choice: Lincoln chose not to heed those — they were not few — who agreed with the prominent publisher Horace Greeley. He said of the seceding Southern states, “Let the erring sisters go in peace.” Lincoln chose against such national suicide. Donald Trump’s administration has chosen not to wager U.S. safety on Iran’s abandoning its multi-decade pursuit of nuclear weapons, or on Iran’s acquiring them but not really meaning “Death to America.”

This is why the JCPOA and Obama's attempted Courting of The Mullahs was always an idiotic strategy. What, did he think he could buy them off? When somebody dedicates their lives to ending yours, you should probably take that seriously.

More Will:

The U.S. action for regime change in Iran is not sufficient to produce regional tranquility. It is, however, a necessity for beginning to reestablish a precondition for a more peaceable world: the credibility of U.S. deterrence.

A nadir of post-1945 U.S. power — and its precondition, confidence — was the 1975 departure of the last helicopter from the U.S. Embassy roof in Saigon. A second low point was reached when Barack Obama drew, in 2012, and then ignored a red line (concerning Syrian chemical weapons). A third was in 2021 when Joe Biden produced a chaotic exit from Afghanistan.

Today, Vladimir Putin is watching Venezuela, Iran (a source of some of Putin’s drones) and soon, perhaps, Cuba, join Syria as vanished clients. The swiftness of their downfall illustrates the hollowness of Russia’s claim to be a formidable global actor.

The point is to isolate China and make life tougher for them.

If China enters into the calculus at all, it is secondary.

Review Burgum's speech at the convention in summer 24. "Energy dominance" was the theme. How do you "dominate" global energy markets? By grabbing a lot of resources for yourself, and taking other people's resources off the market.

Trump the God controls access to the US' large production volume. Trump the Magnificent also controls access to most Canadian production, because it has no path to the rest of the world, other than pipelines through the US. Trump the Perfect now controls access to Venezuelan production.

Then God on Earth Trump starts a war that takes other people's production, amounting to 20% of global supply, off line.

That is how you "dominate" the global energy market.

Steve...long big oil since summer 24

If China enters into the calculus at all, it is secondary.


Nope. This is what's called a strategic rebalancing.
China has the ability to put the West's nuts in a vice with respect to critical minerals and manufacturing. Okey, fine: We're setting conditions to put *their* nuts in a vice in terms of access to energy.

A good old fashioned Mexican standoff. The economic version of strategic nuclear deterrence ca the Cold War.

Oh, also by the way:
https://factually.co/fact-checks/military/irgc-acc...

As I said. The Iranians screwed up and bombed the school, not us.

Why do you think Trump and Bibi keep saying it's up to the Iranians themselves now? We've no interest in replacing Tehran's government; they have to do that themselves.

Again, the strategic goals are
(a) Severely degrade/Eliminate Iran's ability to project power and/or destabilize the region
(b) Further isolate China and remove one of their vassal states, further putting pressure on their energy supplies.

Both objectives appear to have been met.

Not really.

Oh, sure, while the bombs are actually falling, yes. But once we stop bombing them, Iran will very quickly again have the ability to project power and/or destabilize the region. Why wouldn't they? They're a large country sitting on rich oil supplies. After we blow up their stuff, they'll rebuild their military. And why does removing Khameini remove one of their vassal states? Iran has traditionally been more of a client of Russia, not China - their relationship with China has been more economic and developmental, and that's very likely going to continue with Khameini's successor.

One might say there's a Door #3 where she does the exact same things and we just sit there and do nothing about it. Is that right? Don't think that's an option here.

It's highly likely Rubio and co. have shown her what's behind Doors Number 1 and 2 and told her that it's in her best interest to take Door #2.

As a general matter, people who rise to the upper tier of repressive authoritarian states are not cowards who fear for their lives. They tend to be ruthless folk who are quite willing to accept that with power comes the risk that you might end up in a nasty end. So I don't think that Rodriguez is quaking in her boots over the fact that Rubio is telling about Door #1 - or that his threats are likely to make her do anything other than the choices she would make based on the vast array of domestic and global interests, factions, and threats that shaped Maduro's choices before her.

And even if she were the exceedingly rare "authoritarian shrinking violet," it's highly likely that the generals and military leaders who are right there with her have told her it's in her best interests to take Door #3. Because they don't care whether she gets taken away in a helicopter, and their desire to take Door #3 is completely unaffected by what Rubio wants or says. And, again, they're much much closer than Rubio - and they care a lot more than Rubio does.

No offense, but you're standing in the forest telling me about the tree canopy while you bend over and study some fern growing a foot off the ground.

It's so funny, because I believe the exact same thing is true about you. You're focusing entirely on the fern growing a foot off the ground (Maduro being gone and the U.S. directing oil sales), and ignoring the entire forest (that 100% of the people that currently are directing Venezuelan foreign policy are the same people that were in the regime prior to our operation - and that all of the geopolitical factors that led Venezuela to be receptive to China are unchanged). You keep pointing to ridiculously small changes in Venezuelan policy as if they mean something significant has changed, even though the Venezuelan government is virtually identical (save the top job) from what it was before.

Just look at oil. From your own link, we're still going to send most of Venezuela's oil supplies to China. Because the oil flows are shaped by global economic factors and geopolitical forces that are wholly unrelated to what Rubio wants. The oil has to get sold or the country devolves into chaos, and there's nowhere else really to sell it. The article is just some hopeful spin, generated by AI (did you look at what the "beijingpost" actually is? It's just AI slop), that pretends that this is somehow materially detrimental to China. It's not.

Virtually nothing's changed in Venezuela, so very little is going to change in Venezuela's global relations. We don't yet know what's coming in Iran, but many (most) of the likely outcomes are going to be either a continuation of the existing regime in substantially the same form (Venezuela model) or a shift in power to a military dictatorship run directly by the Revolutionary Guard. Neither of which are especially likely to be any less favorably disposed to China than the Khameini administration was. There is a small chance that some substantially different government might arise, based on what the Iranian people want - but that's very unlikely, since the existing regime and the IGRC pretty much have all of the power in the country. Bombing them isn't any more likely to lead to them being replaced than Israel's managed to replace Hamas in Gaza. They're the ones that have nearly all the guns, and there's no alternative - so they'll stay in charge.



https://beijingpost.com/about

I said American Deaths being of no differential of how American military lives were lost

Then what's the connection to his comment? He wasn't talking about American deaths. He was talking about the planes being shot down. So why are you talking about American deaths?

You have zero idea of what planning went on.

No planning was done regarding what to do AFTER the attacks end.

Unless, of course, this is Spankee's "Forever War".

You said that he was playing bingo games with American deaths. But his reference to the Bingo card was the shooting down of the planes. There were no American deaths associated with the downed planes.

Stop playing Lawyer with me.
I’m sure the Board is smart enough and got my drift.
We’ve lost three of our military in this conflict and how they died, plane or wounds sustained
on ground is not the point.
The point is you don’t jest in fun what could have been a different outcome.

Not really.

Guess we’re just digging random holes in the ground, then.

yes. But once we stop bombing them, Iran will very quickly again have the ability to project power and/or destabilize the region. Why wouldn't they?

Oh, it takes 5 minutes to build all new infrastructure, got it.
Tell me. Have they dig up their centrifuges yet?

Iran has traditionally been more of a client of Russia, not China

And yet, who buys the vast majority of Iranian oil?

As a general matter, people who rise to the upper tier of repressive authoritarian states are not cowards who fear for their lives.

Jeez is this one bad. Thugs who use force to cow others into line - as heads of authoritarian states all are - are the very definition of cowards. Did Saddam grab an RPG and go out shooting? How about Benito Mussolini?

So I don't think that Rodriguez is quaking in her boots over the fact that Rubio is telling about Door #1

No offense, but you’ve so badly misread human emotion and incentives I don’t know where to begin.

You think Rodriguez is going to thumb her nose at the US. Sure, fine. We just demonstrated who swings the biggest stick in South America and it’s not her Chinese and Russian buddies.

Secondly, not only does *she* know that but the Venezuelan people do also. You think they might just be a little more emboldened to cause trouble for her? You think the Venezuelan military is going to be gung-ho about obeying orders to shoot protestors knowing that if they do they might have to go a second round with the US military?

Didn’t change anything in Venezuela my left foot.

forest (that 100% of the people that currently are directing Venezuelan foreign policy are the same people that w. See above. The fundamental psychology of that regime is different now.

You keep pointing to ridiculously small changes in Venezuelan policy as if they mean something significant has changed,

Again, see above. And go read George Will. You are spectacularly wrong about a lot of things, my friend.

Bombing them isn't any more likely to lead to them being replaced than Israel's managed to replace Hamas in Gaza. They're the ones that have nearly all the guns, and there's no alternative - so they'll stay in charge.

Oh, man. Tell me you’ve never met any Iranians without telling me you’ve never met many Iranians.

Persia is not Gaza. Not in any stretch of the imagination.

The point is you don’t jest in fun what could have been a different outcome.

And don't play lawyer with me. Referring to something as not being on your bingo card is not the same thing as suggesting that one is actually playing a bingo game with the idea. It's a metaphorical way of describing an especially unexpected outcome - not someone "jesting" about someone dying.

Go Away..you’re boring me.

Have they dig up their centrifuges yet?

Apparently so - after all, the Administration has said repeatedly that this attack was necessary to keep them from getting nuclear material. "Probably a week away," is what senior administration officials said. If blowing their stuff up has not previously been an effective strategy to keep them from advancing their weapons program over that short a time period, blowing up more of their material is unlikely to be a medium- or long-term impediment to reconstituting those weapons - much less the conventional weapons system we've now expanded our mission to prevent them from having.

And yet, who buys the vast majority of Iranian oil?

China, just like we purchase the majority of China's exports without being their patron. China wants to get raw materials to feed their economy, and they're perfectly willing to do business with all sorts of nasty countries. But they've long been publicly opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and have generally refrained from much military support to Iran, knowing full well that Iran answered more to Moscow than Beijing in terms of military activity.

They now will have a golden opportunity to change that. The weaker the Iranian regime gets, the more dependent they on China they will become. No longer just economically, but technologically and diplomatically and (perhaps) militarily. China hasn't been a significant arms supplier to Iran for many years (they were back in the 1980's, but that dwindled away by the late 1990's) - but this may create a chance for them to reestablish that more formal relationship. Especially if the U.S. has to pretend that the "new" Iranian government is very different from the prior regime and backs away from sanctions and diplomatic isolation (as it has with Venezuela), opening the door for China to convert some of their covert investment in Iran into a far more open relationship.

Secondly, not only does *she* know that but the Venezuelan people do also. You think they might just be a little more emboldened to cause trouble for her? You think the Venezuelan military is going to be gung-ho about obeying orders to shoot protestors knowing that if they do they might have to go a second round with the US military?

Yeah, the Venezuelan people aren't going to have any real say in this. Because while they know that the U.S. took Maduro away in a helicopter, they also know that the U.S. didn't do anything else and left all the people that were repressing them and killing them still in charge. And the Venezuelan military is a key part of the government. They're not going to be hesitant to shoot protestors, because shooting protestors is what keeps them in charge. They're going to do that without regard to going a second round with the U.S. military, because the U.S. military is a contingent and very limited threat (we're not going to invade Venezuela, and they have to stay in power. Rodriguez isn't afraid of the Venezuelan people - if she's afraid of anyone, it's the generals who will be telling her exactly what happens if she listens to Rubio instead of them.

Tell me you’ve never met any Iranians without telling me you’ve never met many Iranians.

Tell me you don't have a cogent response without telling me you don't have a cogent response. This is one of your common phrases, and it doesn't communicate anything.

Gaza isn't Persia, but the power differential between unarmed civilians and a heavily armed military regime that controls all every single facet of the country with ruthless and violent means is the same everywhere. The reason the Gazans can't seize power from Hamas is because they don't have the resources to do it, and Hamas will kill anyone who tries to change that. The reason the Iranians won't seize power from the regime is because they don't have the resources to do it, and the regime will kill anyone who tries to change that (as they have already). It has nothing to do with the personality or culture or the specifics of the unarmed populace - it has to do with the fact that it's an unarmed civilian populace.

As I said. The Iranians screwed up and bombed the school, not us.

From your link:

Based on the reporting assembled, the IRGC has not confirmed that it accidentally bombed the Minab girls’ school; Iranian authorities blame U.S. and Israeli strikes, independent media verified the destruction but not definitive attribution or casualty counts, and suggestions of an accidental IRGC strike remain conjecture in the absence of a direct admission or publicly available forensic proof

From the Wiki article:

Following the attack, Iranian pro-Monarchist opposition pages began disseminating information that the airstrike was a failed IRGC interception. These claims originated from associated Telegram channels and were debunked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_ai...

March 2, 2026 | 11:32 AM
Investigation Debunks Claims IRGC Bombed Iranian School

https://newlinesmag.com/running-notes/investigatio...

Ever wonder how so many hundreds, if not thousands, of old, Imperial style, Iranian flags have suddenly been produced and distributed among ex-pats in the US and elsewhere? Or is this all part of the program, from January, when the media was dutifully reporting the rioting mobs in Iran were shouting for the return of "Prince Reza"?

Steve

Okey, fine: We're setting conditions to put *their* nuts in a vice in terms of access to energy.

No more so than anyone else that imports oil from the Persian Gulf, like India.

Steve

China

Indeed. They buy IIRC almost 90% of Iran’s oil.

But they've long been publicly opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and have generally refrained from much military support to Iran

You might want to research who gave the test reactors to Iran at Isfahan.

You also might want to check out what kind of joint military exercises have been taking place.

Yeah, the Venezuelan people aren't going to have any real say in this. Because while they know that the U.S. took Maduro away in a helicopter, they also know that the U.S. didn't do anything else and left all the people that were repressing them and killing them still in charge.

Okay. Go ahead and ignore the fact that we had to shoot our way in and out. Just pretend we flew in there and said “Freeze, police!” and that was that.

Most people on the receiving end of an ass-kicking remember what the boot looked like and who was wearing it. But if you think the Venezuelan military wants another go at the US (this time *absent* all their anti air because we blew it all up during the Maduro raid)...be my guest.

Tell me you don't have a cogent response without telling me you don't have a cogent response. This is one of your common phrases, and it doesn't communicate anything.

Sure it does. It’s highly clear from your first set of comments that you think Iran is either Gaza (where literally everyone there is an Islamic fanatic) or Iraq (very clannish and also prone to fight).

Your original post kinda left out that Persia has a massive history, that they remember not being a sh1thole prior to 1979 and that their culture and nation isn’t some made up thing from a British map. They go back literally thousands of years.

Rather than type all that I said what I said.

It has nothing to do with the personality or culture or the specifics of the unarmed populace - it has to do with the fact that it's an unarmed civilian populace.

Replace Iran with the United States ca 1776. At any rate, that’s up to the Iranian people to decide if they want to go for it or live under the mullah’s thumbs. We’re good either way so long as we set their mischief making back several years.

By the way, that’s what the potential ground troops would be for: giving the locals some skillz.

By the way part 2, while we’re criticizing each other’s posting style, you have 3-4 go to tactics, the most popular being ignoring any points that others make.

Hmmm..number one ghoul plays Bingo games with American deaths, filling his card and yells BINGO!

We’re playing BINGO with the many ways this administration shows its incompetence.

Unfortunately, their incompetence often leads to American deaths.


Like not hardening a soft logistical site in Kuwait when you’re getting ready to bomb Iran. Those deaths that occurred there would have been less likely if simple precautions had been taken.

The deaths of Americans is on the heads of this administration. Have the families of the dead even been informed yet? As of noon today, they hadn’t been- even the first 3.

"Best case: The Iranian people overthrow the Mullahs and establish any kind of other government.
Worst case: The Mullahs stay in charge.

Worst part of the best case? The new government isn't super friendly to the US (unlikely)." - Dumbass Dope

You think that if the Mullahs get overthrown, the new government would be friendly to the U.S.? That is insane.

The Iranian people do not like the U.S. Period, full stop. They might not like be led by the Mullahs, but they do not like the U.S. either.

Continually bombing them isn't helping their opinion of the U.S. Right now our bombs are killing hundreds of innocent civilians (as well the Mullahs). People do not like countries who drop bombs on their friends and families.

Let's invert this. It is obvious I hate that Donald Trump is the President of the U.S. I think he is destroying everything that made America great and is making America a worse place for its citizens. Yet, if Denmark dropped a bomb on the White House and killed Trump, I would not suddenly like Denmark. I would hate that they are attacking America and destroying American institutions. Especially if they killed a busload of schoolchildren just outside of the White House while doing it.

To think any government coming from the Iranian people will be friendly to the U.S. is delusional.

"When was the last time we lost three fighter jets in one day to friendly fire?

Unless it turns out Kuwaiti AA batteries were manned by Iranian agents, this is a huge screw-up.

“Someone forgot to turn their transponder back on” might work as an excuse for one plane. But three? Simultaneously?

This is the kind of thing that happens when war planners have no idea what they are doing." - Pastor Bill

I remember back in the TMF days, Dumbass Dope blamed Jimmy Carter for the helicopters that crashed in the desert during the attempted rescue of the hostages.

That is the thing about Dumbass Dope, he is consistent in his views, just not how a normal person is. He is consistent in that if it happens under a Republican it is ok, if it happens under a Democrat it is the end of the world.

Do deficits matter? Depends upon the party of the president.

Is it good or bad if a president bombs a foreign country? Depends upon the party of the President.

It would be hilarious to go back and read Dumbass Dope's criticisms of Obama's bombing campaign in Libya and compare it to his views on Trump's current bombing campaign in Iran, but alas the TMF posts no longer exist.

As I said. The Iranians screwed up and bombed the school, not us.

Do you ever question your questionable sources?

35 years, DoD, 3 wars with a joint special operations task force, have felt the rounds hit from close air support, etc etc.

This is most likely a really bad airspace deconfliction problem.

But that's no surprise - we have DHS shooting down DOD drones on the border, or whatever stupidity that was. Now we have blue-on-green (friendly allied forces shooting down our forces).

I would strongly suspect we lacked proper manning in whatever the Kuwaiti Joint Operations Center is, or flat-out just went YOLO and didn't inform them. And now we get FAFO.

You can't run a war on dudebro acronyms.

It will get worse. We'll have some casualties from this before it is over. Even in highly trained units, operating in much more clear chains of command, it happens. Pat Tillman.

Yes it's terrible. Yet more evidence to fully support Trump's attempt to eradicate those Muhammad Loving, pedophile loving, Hitler loving, Allah loving murderers in Iran.

I would strongly suspect we lacked proper manning in whatever the Kuwaiti Joint Operations Center is, or flat-out just went YOLO and didn't inform them. And now we get FAFO.

Add to that…. The wholesale redeployment of defense and national security personnel to anti-immigration efforts


But this administration shows a singular inability to learn from its mistakes (unless those mistakes directly threaten Donald Trump’s fortune or ego).

Don Jr. and Eric are reportedly working on their tans in Palm Beach.
***

At taxpayer's expense.

--it's part of Sheeple's punishment.

For a 2nd term :)

Only a true asshole would blame anyone for this incident other than the Mullahs in Tehran.

Why do you continue to support pedophile-loving, goat fucking, women hating, Jew hating, Western values hating, Hitler loving, Jihadi Islamic terrorists in Tehran?

Just because you hate Trump and hate republicans? So what? All you need to do to fix that is for Democrats to win a couple of elections.

EZ PZ, right?

Why do you support pedophiles in Tehran? Because your hatred of Trump and America so blinds you that you're insane with hatred?

These are the same people who would literally chop your balls off and force feed them to you, if you went to Tehran wearing a Tshirt with a picture of Muhammad and lettering on it saying "Fuck Islam, Fuck Muhammad, he was a pedophile."

Why do you support Islamic pedophiles who want to kill all Americans, including you?

Indeed. They buy IIRC almost 90% of Iran’s oil.

And they almost certainly buy the overwhelming majority of Iran's oil after this operation is done, assuming the country doesn't completely fall into chaos. Whoever runs Iran after the bombing stops is going to be willing to sell to China just as much as before.

Most people on the receiving end of an ass-kicking remember what the boot looked like and who was wearing it. But if you think the Venezuelan military wants another go at the US (this time *absent* all their anti air because we blew it all up during the Maduro raid)...be my guest.

But they didn't personally get any ass-kicking. This was an incredibly well-done, but incredibly narrow operation. They took Maduro and killed a few dozen security staff....and that's it. Because that's all Trump wanted to do - take out Maduro, claim victory, and leave everything else unchanged.

There's no reason for them to be particularly worried about a repeat of that, either. The U.S. is going to be busy for a while, between Iran and possibly Cuba - and isn't going to be eager to admit that nothing much was accomplished in Venezuela by removing Maduro. Heck, until his trial they're going to be reluctant to admit he was removed for geopolitical reasons rather than for his own personal crimes.

Sure it does. It’s highly clear from your first set of comments that you think Iran is either Gaza (where literally everyone there is an Islamic fanatic) or Iraq (very clannish and also prone to fight).

Your original post kinda left out that Persia has a massive history, that they remember not being a sh1thole prior to 1979 and that their culture and nation isn’t some made up thing from a British map. They go back literally thousands of years.

It is not at all clear from my comments, because I don't think the Iranian people or culture are similar to Gaza or Iraq. My comparison was to the fact that Iran, like Gaza, has had a repressive military dictatorship that has had decades to use violence to purge the populace of any leadership, organization, or movement that could possibly pose any threat to their control. Therefore, there is literally nothing currently existing among the people that can serve as the nucleus for any kind of resistance - which makes incredibly long odds that they could ever overcome an entrenched, organized, well-armed, and ruthless military trying to hold onto power.

At any rate, that’s up to the Iranian people to decide if they want to go for it or live under the mullah’s thumbs. We’re good either way so long as we set their mischief making back several years.

It's not up to them. If we leave the existing regime in place, the existing regime will "decide." The people don't get to decide, because the people don't have the guns. The people have had every single potential opposition leader jailed or executed. This isn't the colonies in 1776, who didn't have self-government but had a lot of personal freedom and their own domestic quasi-independent governance structures and a host of other things that have been excised from the Iranian milieu.

But they didn't personally get any ass-kicking. This was an incredibly well-done, but incredibly narrow operation. They took Maduro and killed a few dozen security staff....and that's it. Because that's all Trump wanted to do - take out Maduro, claim victory, and leave everything else unchanged.

Let's ask this guy:

A Venezuelan security guard, who was on duty during the US operation to capture the country's leader Nicolas Maduro, has revealed what transpired during Operation Absolute Resolve on January 3. Reshared by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on X, a post, quoting an interview with the guard, detailed what the guard called a “massacre.”

“It was a massacre. We were hundreds, but we had no chance,” the Venezuelan guard said. “They (US forces) were shooting with such precision and speed, it seemed like each soldier was firing 300 rounds per minute. We couldn't do anything.”

He sounds eager for a Round 2.

Therefore, there is literally nothing currently existing among the people that can serve as the nucleus for any kind of resistance - which makes incredibly long odds that they could ever overcome an entrenched, organized, well-armed, and ruthless military trying to hold onto power.

The Iran National Council might be somebody to work with.

It's not up to them.

Yes, it is. Today we blew up the people who were going to pick Khamanei's successor. The Mullahocracy is running out of people to sit in chairs. If the Iranian people want to go for it, now is the time. It's totally up to them.

The people don't get to decide, because the people don't have the guns.

Who knew you were a Second Amendment supporter? :)

He sounds eager for a Round 2.

Does he make policy in Venezuela? Run the internal security forces or set foreign policy? Direct their domestic forces to assert a tight stranglehold over the populace, knowing that if the existing regime were ever to lose power that they'd all be up against a wall (and thus have very strong incentives not to do most of what Washington might want)?

No. He's a security guard. Of course the cannon fodder doesn't want a Round 2 - because they're the cannon fodder. The generals who decide what happens in Venezuela don't care what the cannon fodder wants. They care what they want. And they want to run their country the way they want to, and not follow the U.S.

Today we blew up the people who were going to pick Khamanei's successor. The Mullahocracy is running out of people to sit in chairs. If the Iranian people want to go for it, now is the time. It's totally up to them.

It's not up to them. It's up to the people with guns. If it's not a mullah, it will be a general. The "Iranian people" have no vehicle by which to assert what they want, no mechanism to translate the popular will into a change of who actually runs the country.

Who knew you were a Second Amendment supporter? :)

The Second Amendment doesn't really come into it. If the U.S. military decided to stage a coup and dislodge the civilian leadership and convert the U.S. into a military dictatorship, "the people" also wouldn't be able to stop it. I'm using the term "guns," but it's the entire package that makes a military force a vastly more effective fighting element than a bunch of undifferentiated civilians: better guns (of course), but also heavy weaponry, tanks and combat vehicles, air power, communications systems, training and a formal command command structure, access to ammunition and supply lines, advanced technology systems, and a host of other advantages that make it all-but-impossible for any civilian group to actually stand down an oppressive military regime to choose the next leaders.

There is a path to do that, but the term is "civil war" - you could see the populace actually organize, be supplied with better weaponry from abroad, and form a rebellion against the leadership. But that is a little different than "the Iranian people wanting to go for it" in the present time - that's going to be years of fighting with the nation torn apart by civil war. Libya, not the American Revolution (though to be fair, the American Revolution was also eight years of war).

Of course the cannon fodder doesn't want a Round 2 - because they're the cannon fodder. The generals who decide what happens in Venezuela don't care what the cannon fodder wants. They care what they want. And they want to run their country the way they want to, and not follow the U.S.


Sure. They can order their dudes to Aut cum scuto aut in scuto. How many of them plan to do that?

It's not up to them. It's up to the people with guns. If it's not a mullah, it will be a general. The "Iranian people" have no vehicle by which to assert what they want, no mechanism to translate the popular will into a change of who actually runs the country.

Guess we'll see, won't we? Bear in the mind that "the military" is made up of "the people".

The Second Amendment doesn't really come into it.

Sure it does, and you're wrong entirely in your next couple of paragraphs, but that's another thread.

- and isn't going to be eager to admit that nothing much was accomplished in Venezuela by removing Maduro.

Trump the Magnificent got what he wanted in Venezuela, control of the oil. Does anyone think seizing Venezuela's oil, and attacking Iran are isolated incidents, not part of an overall plan? They said it out loud in 2024 "energy domination".

Steve

Who knew you were a Second Amendment supporter? :)

NOT Spankee.

How many of them plan to do that?

I'm not sure it matters, because (again) they don't get to choose. What would precipitate a Round 2 is....well, it's uncertain what would actually precipitate Round 2 in Venezuela, because there doesn't appear to be much we're asking them to do, right? They're obviously not making any material changes to the government's domestic policies or moving away from socialism, and certainly not honoring their losses in prior elections or making plans to hold any new ones. The only significant change is that we've de facto eliminated the economic sanctions against them, in exchange for them letting us serve as their broker for selling all their oil - which is a real "please don't throw me in that Briar Patch!" kind of thing they have no reason to push back on. We lifted the sanctions, and they didn't have to do any of the things that we imposed sanctions on them in the first place - still no democratic elections, all the corrupt folks who were the basis of the sanctions bills are still in place (no one's been purged, much less tried), very little movement in dismantling the repressive rights-suppressing apparatus, etc. Which seems like a real win for the oppressive authoritarian regime, to get out from under sanctions without having to give anything material up - just release a few political prisoners but make it clear that no formal opposition will be tolerated and anyone can still be picked up at any time.

But I digress. The point is that it's not the cannon fodder who choose whether Venezuela will do something that pisses the U.S. off in a way that instigates Round 2. If they're in the way of Round 2, then that will happen. They don't have to be ordered to march off to it.

Anyhoo, I think you're right that we'll see what unfolds. Trump's already recognizing the possibility that we may end up with someone in charge of Iran who ends up just as bad. That was always a likely outcome regardless of whether the Administration publicly admitted to it, but the fact that he's floating that makes me wonder if the Administration actually did lose their plausible preferred choices in the initial strikes.

Someone has thought that through. You guys never really understood what happened in Venezuela.

Enlighten us, Dope the sage one, as to what happened in Venezuela that we don't understand. It seems you are always pretending something brilliant happened, and telling us things like the psychology changed, as if that vague claim was the great objective all along. We got Maduro, went after tankers, and established a Middle East bank account for the Donald. At one point you claimed the objective was to get China out of there, now we invite China back.

I am just hoping we get lucky and something good falls out of the sky.

I am just hoping we get lucky and something good falls out of the sky.

A Spankee *splat* would be VERY good for everyone.

"Changed my mind, war is good now." ~Dope1

"Changed my mind, war is good now." ~Dope1

Had Biden done something like this, Dope, along with all the RW media would be losing their minds in condemning it.

As I said. The Iranians screwed up and bombed the school, not us.

After a few more days.... U.S. investigation now leans toward admitting that we most likely were responsible.

Beware of jumping to an early conclusion. Kristi Noem began her descent into irrelevance by pushing early conclusions about "domestic terrorists". As I remember, you fell for that one as well.

But I say all of this with the advantage of hindsight.

Hindsight is 20/20. That's why we use it.

After a few more days.... U.S. investigation now leans toward admitting that we most likely were responsible.

Aerial photos shown in reports show the school, and buildings in the neighboring Revolutionary Guard facility have all been hit, precisely. Seems more like "precision munitions" than an accident.

Satellite images show Iran school strike hit more buildings than earlier reported

The bombing of an Iranian elementary school that killed some 165 people, many of them schoolgirls, included more targets near the school than has been initially reported, a review of commercial satellite imagery by NPR has found.

The strike points "look like pretty clean detonation centroids," said Corey Scher, a postdoctoral researcher at the Conflict Ecology laboratory at Oregon State University.

"These certainly appear like detonation sites," agreed Scher's colleague, Oregon State associate professor Jamon Van Den Hoek.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/04/nx-s1-5735801/satel...

Steve

As I remember, you fell for that one as well.

No, I don’t. Merely because somebody on this board says something…that doesn’t make it true.

Usually it’s the exact opposite. As in this case.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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