- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
No one has cared about Spain since Franco died. Even the Spanish.
Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.
- Thread starter Mister Fister
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
I’ll make the argument.
They’re an irrational regime with access to nuclear materials and can substantially disrupt economic functions through their access to the strait.
They’re also an oil supplier to our adversaries like China and Russia.
China has the goal of invading Taiwan, and will likely drag us into a pacific conflict. So we have major incentives to disrupt their war making capacities.
Russia and Iran engage in alot of oil trading and is a substantial part of how Russia is able to move their oil out. Iran is a big part in enabling the Ukraine invasion currently.
Iran also has been seeing alot of civil unrest that resulted in thousands of deaths. These are partially spurred by deep economic woes the government is not able to fix without our sanction relief. This means they are in a very sensitive position.
I don’t even lean into the “muh nukes in 2 weeks” talk because it doesn’t matter. They clearly had intentions to build nukes eventually, and that creates regional complications for us. Its better to solve the problem while they’re vulnerable than let it go because we were too hesitant or pre-occupied.
In short, I’m thinking about the grand strategy involved.
JCVD_Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2024
>Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers die to occupy 20% of Venezuela after 4 years
>Blackwater tried to overthrow the US government
>Canada leaves NATO
>Iran carries out a successful bombing campaign of the US allied Gulf States
>Israel falls to Arab rebels
>Chinese helicopters raid Taipei and capture the Taiwanese president
>Russia kills the Ukrainian leadership in 3 days
LMAO the whole anti-West crowd must be suicidal right now
>Blackwater tried to overthrow the US government
>Canada leaves NATO
>Iran carries out a successful bombing campaign of the US allied Gulf States
>Israel falls to Arab rebels
>Chinese helicopters raid Taipei and capture the Taiwanese president
>Russia kills the Ukrainian leadership in 3 days
LMAO the whole anti-West crowd must be suicidal right now
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2023
I imagine on day one they were planning to, since the day the footage of the Burj al Arab tower caught on fire the tinfoil part of me though "shit, that tower is close to the royal palace, they wouldn't right?"
Romulus augustulus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2023
Starmer's problem is he can't make a decision to safe his life. He's went back on just about every major decision he's had. He'd not have half the problems he does if he'd just stick to his guns right or wrong. He's obsessed with "international law" and just agrees with what ever lord Hermer says international law is.
well, that and he's a retarded Labour failed (((human rights))) lawyer.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
The UK not getting involved is abnormal. Not really because of its historic ties to the US but more so because of its historic ties to gulf countries.
I think they basically have no power at all anymore, the UK has lost it all and their navy sucks dick too.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2020
Old simpsons was hard to beat
Israel and the US have different end games and timeframes (at least in theory).
Trump should be on the clock, a protracted conflict will fuck him. Iran's never been a serious threat to the US, but he's right that they are a legitimate threat to regional stability and US allies.
Hamas + Hezbollah annoying Israel is one thing but forcing Iran's hand re: attacking Gulf states + closing Strait of Hormuz raises the stakes massively. The longer it goes on the more heat he'll get both domestically and from the GCC if he can't protect the latter. I don't know how he gets a decent result. Regime change was never happening. You'd think he needs the war to end quickly and have something to show for it (but I don't even know what that is). "Iran never get nukes and their ballistics program is cooked" won't cut it.
Israel is happy for it to go on for as long as it takes. Iran should be a failed state, the region balkanized with decades of infighting hopefully shrinking or (ironically) removing Iran from the map. This should be a disastrous result for Trump, but if he's truly 100% kiked this is his goal too and he'll just take the heat/deflect and blame others. Could charitably say the 'America First' argument is destroying a country friendly to Russia and China is in the US interest, but the cost is massive.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
We barely have a military. Our army would struggle to field a battalion.
We could provide air support, especially from Cyprus but we have no money. The economy is running on fumes and we are all pretending we are fine as we are just one act of cultural enrichment from jackboots marching into parliament and burning it down. Getting directly involved makes said actions of cultural enrichment guaranteed.
I think we're waiting on American to say they'll pay for all the ordinance that we fire.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2024
it depends. we produce a lot of oil domestically but it's a global commodity so if prices spike globally they can also spike here.
also retard biden did a massive drawdown on our domestic oil reserves because of ukraine shit "putin price hike".
we have been replenishing it though, i just looked it up and our oil reserves are at 58% which isn't terrible.
Deo_Terra
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2019
An Ideal successful outcome in this war is the IRGC weakened enough that the Iranian Monarchy is restored without significant opposition with Iran as a country remaining in one whole piece. If we left at this very moment we still pretty much have a victory they are going to have to use resources on other things besides funding terrorist groups or their nuclear program for a while especially since they sperged out and attacked all of their gulf state neighbors including the ones who were before this actively helping them out.
Its most likely the former because the Iranian state as I understand it promotes based on loyalty, ideological purity, and corruption rather than on merit any candidate for leadership that the IRGC world approve of is not one that is Ideal.
The effectiveness of any closure is yet to be seen it should be pretty easy cargo ships aren’t hard targets to hit but from how things have played out so far the IRGC appears to be retarded regardless the strait closing is mainly a China, Russia, and Europe issue we should be relatively fine.
It’s both any religious minority is going to back the Shah to the hilt because they are relentlessly persecuted but they would take anything at this point, any urban population especially those who own small businesses or live in areas affected by IRGC retardation are the ones who have been rioting and being executed in the streets for the past 2 months, rural populations are more hit and miss they tend to be more religious and that’s where the IRGC gets its backing but the IRGC is retarded and have definitely pissed off a lot of people with their shitty dams and general mismanagement of everything, and the Kurds and Communists (the Venn diagram between them is basically a single circle) just want enough chaos to carve out their own state and will not be our allies for long in this situation.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
I can tell not much is going on right now because of the number of posts that should be in the Mass Debates thread.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2022
My theory is honestly that the UK is fully aware they have a poor handle on their large Muslim population on a good day but will never admit this. They know that if they go to war with any middle eastern country it is instant destabilization.
Stealthzdragons
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2017
Forgot to add that we also made China look like utter fools again by making their 'highly advanced tech' Temu-based.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2024
>is beautiful, white, American woman
>your jet gets inexplicably shot down in the middle of sandnigger land
>holyfuckingshit
>is forced to eject, which might permanently damage your spine and leave you paraplegic
>land safely, but now there are a bunch of sandnigger men running toward you
>is completely alone. The men running toward you are sandniggers from Sandniggerhstan
>they're getting closer
>have such confidence in yourself, your training and in your divine protection as an American that you don't even panic
>just beam at the sandniggers with the most beautiful smile they'll ever see in their entire lives
>not an ounce of fear in your eyes
>in complete control of the situation
Absolute chad of a lady. God bless her.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
There is almost zero chance Kuwaitis would ever fuck with US soldiers (whether male or female) because the US saved their asses hardcore in the first Gulf War and they're all keenly aware of that fact.
Plus I believe that US soldiers under rules of engagement can just take out their pistol and start shooting people if they face trouble.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2019
I'm surprised at the number of people here repeating the moral justifications for war. The Real Politik posters saying what there is to gain from this can be debated back for forth. But the moralisers? Iran is a regime and it's right to bring it down. Most of the USA's regional allies on this are dictatorships of some variety. Kuwait has a servant class that is 80% of their population, not even having the rights of citizenship, who literally cannot quit their job without their employer's permission and must live in whatever accommodation their employer tells them to. Most of the Sunni countries that the USA is propping are like this. And God help you if you're a woman in Oman because Allah wont. So there might be moral arguments for opposing Iran's regime but the USA has the leverage and power to oppose similar regimes but instead supports them, so opposing the Iranian regime becomes a moral excuse, not a moral reason. It's the same for pretty much any other moral reason given and some people seem unaware of how little weight that carries outside their echo chambers (which this thread is becoming).
"Iran might develop nuclear weapons any day now."
"Nuclear weapons like you have?"
"But Iran might use them."
"You're literally the only country in history that has used nuclear weapons - and you did it to a country that was trying to surrender."
"You are an aggressor."
"Israel routinely assassinates our leaders and blows up our infrastructure and you have imposed sanctions that have kept our people poor for decades. Are you not aggressors?"
"We only do that pre-emptively because you're an aggressor. Something something 1979"
"We overthrew a literal 'king' that you imposed on us to make sure we didn't keep the profits from our own oil fields. We had an actual democracy before that which your imposed 'Shah' replaced."
Try having the moral conversation with anyone not a politically aligned Burgerstani and see the incredulity on their faces. The hallmark of an echo chamber. The people here who say: "doing this gets me material benefit _____" or "I bought shares in the oil companies that backed the Venezuela operation" can make those arguments. But the moralfags in this thread just bemuse me. They're little different than the Leftists they typically despise - just a difference set of soundbites to repeat.
As to the actual practical benefits, the main ones I see are for Netenyahu who is coming up for elections and needs this to win as he's quite unpopular there. And Trump gets the Neocon and Zionist lobby backing that helps him carry out other policies he wants. Or maybe the Israeli lobby has convinced him this will be some quick win and a feather in his cap. But I don't see this working out well for ordinary people.
"Iran might develop nuclear weapons any day now."
"Nuclear weapons like you have?"
"But Iran might use them."
"You're literally the only country in history that has used nuclear weapons - and you did it to a country that was trying to surrender."
"You are an aggressor."
"Israel routinely assassinates our leaders and blows up our infrastructure and you have imposed sanctions that have kept our people poor for decades. Are you not aggressors?"
"We only do that pre-emptively because you're an aggressor. Something something 1979"
"We overthrew a literal 'king' that you imposed on us to make sure we didn't keep the profits from our own oil fields. We had an actual democracy before that which your imposed 'Shah' replaced."
Try having the moral conversation with anyone not a politically aligned Burgerstani and see the incredulity on their faces. The hallmark of an echo chamber. The people here who say: "doing this gets me material benefit _____" or "I bought shares in the oil companies that backed the Venezuela operation" can make those arguments. But the moralfags in this thread just bemuse me. They're little different than the Leftists they typically despise - just a difference set of soundbites to repeat.
As to the actual practical benefits, the main ones I see are for Netenyahu who is coming up for elections and needs this to win as he's quite unpopular there. And Trump gets the Neocon and Zionist lobby backing that helps him carry out other policies he wants. Or maybe the Israeli lobby has convinced him this will be some quick win and a feather in his cap. But I don't see this working out well for ordinary people.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2020
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2020
This is not the reason. The RAF and Royal Navy are still quite formidable and the UK has plenty of assets that would be useful in this war. Two quite large aircraft carriers, some very capable air defence destroyers, frigates and subs armed with excellent cruise missiles. Very good jets in the form of F-35s and Typhoons. Plus some pretty new tankers and surveillance planes. And of course for the sneaky sneaky stuff, world class special forces. And much of these assets are already deployed to the region in British bases in the Gulf.
Even in its degraded state, the UK's military is still quite useful for this type of warfare.
The problem is politics. It is similar to how the UK stayed out of the Vietnam War, despite having an interest in stemming the spread of communism in Asia. When Blair committed British troops to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he had a domineering stranglehold over British politics. He also had a personal commitment to intervention as a tool of spreading Western values and influence. Starmer does not have any of this. He is a human rights lawyer who feels more comfortable in a courtroom than a war planning room, and he is so politically weak right now that his government could collapse from a mouse sneezing near it. He's not a gambling man, he will err on the side of caution.
He did commit UK forces to the strikes on the Houthis last year, but he was in a better position at the time, and bombing raghead militias attacking random ships was less controversial than this is. I will say, personally, I think we should get involved simply because Iran and its proxies are attacking our bases on Cyprus. But sadly I am not the ruler of Great Britain. :/