Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.

  • 🏰 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
Myrtle the Turtle said:
Serious question, does this operation make Israel our greatest modern military ally?

The UK is becoming an authoritarian muslim shithole who won't get involved because it will piss off their muslim voting block. Starmer is compromised as far as Im concerned. Macron is a faggot barely hanging on and won't involve France because Trump bad and because of the same migrant issue. German is dealing with its own problems with migrants, trying to keep a viable army and propping up Ukraine. I like Meloni but Italy needs a push and can't extend their military like three I mentioned earlier.

You have Turkey which is stronger but they don't always play along with the US all the time, Poland is another strong state but they are understandably doing their own thing because they're so close to Russia border. South Korea is too politically unstable with all of their political baggage to be a global ally.

Japan has been warm with us ever since Shinzo, but so far they haven't taken place in kinetic military action and their constitution limits the military for now.

That leaves Israel who is the only one strong enough to start conflict with the US and neutralize the threat and put their people at risk to accomplish dual objectives.
Click to expand...
If Israel is our only "ally", then the world at large are our enemies. Extrapolate what should be done regarding that as you will.
 
diroama said:
The answer is that it's both. The EU is a single entity, but its a single entity that contains sovereign states as members, as oppose to the federal states of the US. Each member state can choose whether to cooperate militarily with the USA, or any other country - defence isn't (yet) under the purview of the EU.

When it comes to trade the EU operates as a bloc - that's why the EU is relevant when another country threatens trade with one member state. EU member states retain sovereignty despite this because each member state has chosen to trade as a bloc, and has the ability to pull out of that arrangement at any time a la Brexit.

This isn't an "identity crisis", it's what the EU is.
Click to expand...
Technically, the EU is solely an economic union. It’s not a confederacy or a military alliance. The nanny state aspects of EU are supposedly under the guise of ‘commerce’ and ‘trade’, but they can’t really do shit about military action.
 
BootlegPopeye said:
There was already an attempt to do this in 2021-22 with the DeSantis bros (some of the same people too). Don't think it will work, because they don't realize what a small percentage they are of Trump's coalition.
Click to expand...
Six percent seems to be the current figure
1773793760764.png
 
George Lucas said:
Technically, the EU is solely an economic union. It’s not a confederacy or a military alliance. The nanny state aspects of EU are supposedly under the guise of ‘commerce’ and ‘trade’, but they can’t really do shit about military action.
Click to expand...
Fun fact article 43 of the UN charter says that member nations must allow the UN security council access to their armies when requested (as per later agreements), those agreements have never been drawn up, and thus the mechanism does not exist. Hence why the UN just does "police actions". Also article 47 is suppose to set up a military staff commitee.
 
Delicious Diversity said:
The most obvious one is economic - before this war started, oil was flowing freely. After this war started, oil flows are threatened and prices are rising. Europe is both more economically and more politically vulnerable to these price spikes than the US is
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good reason to escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
Delicious Diversity said:
They've also annoyed Europe with the whole Greenland thing.
Click to expand...
Trump wants Greenland because he thinks that the US can’t trust military agreements with Europe. You proved him right when you refused to let us use your bases to launch attacks on Iran despite us having an agreement to let us do that.
Delicious Diversity said:
Hesitation to allow the use of bases was likely due to a concern of entanglement; Europeans don't want to be drawn into a war they don't need when there is a war ongoing in Europe (Ukraine) against a more important threat (Russia).
Click to expand...
It’s going to cost you Greenland. Also, it’s not like you respect their sovereignty either; Greenlanders want to be independent, not a colony of Denmark.
Delicious Diversity said:
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance taking place in some people's heads here. On the one hand, Europe is useless and we don't need their help. On the other, we actually do want their help but Europe is being selfish.
Click to expand...
There is no dissonance. We don’t need your help and we think you’re ungrateful retarded weaklings for not being willing to defend your own shipping lanes.
Delicious Diversity said:
But then when America pursues its interests (Iran) and Europe pursues its interests (Ukraine), now suddenly we need the old alliance back in action and if America goes to war with some random sand people country, Europe needs to go with them, otherwise they are "bad allies". Even though separate strategic focuses for each half of the alliance was America's idea.
Click to expand...
What separate focuses? The US paid for all of Ukraine’s weapons. Without American assistance, Russia would have taken the country in three days. If Europe was as generous as the US was, they’d be paying for every bomb and missile used against Iran.
Delicious Diversity said:
Lastly, two further relevant details - Europe has large numbers of citizens living in the Gulf states. The UK alone has over 300,000 expats living there. It does cause a headache for them when said expats start getting bombed because a war has broken out.
Click to expand...
Sounds like another good reason to get involved, though the UK government hates their citizens in Dubai and views them as tax cheats.
Delicious Diversity said:
There are also concerns surrounding international law. I know international law as a concept has become a bit of a joke, but European countries remain wedded to the idea because, as smaller states, they benefit from a rules-based system existing. So if any country, be it Russia or America, undermines that concept, it can make them nervous.
Click to expand...
If a rules-based order is so important to them, then they should have not broken the rules by, amongst other things, rigging elections, crafting protectionist “safety” regulations, and writing bills of attainder to steal money from tech companies.
Delicious Diversity said:
Europe has been willing to help in some ways as the conflict has grown. When Iran decided to chimp out and fire missiles at everyone around them, including UK sovereign bases on Cyprus via their proxy Hezbollah, Europe sent warships, fighter jets, AA systems and technical personnel to help with the air defence operation in the Gulf. They have since shot down many Iranian drones and missiles. This helps the US since it frees up their own resources to focus on striking targets in Iran.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t help the US at all. It helps Europe by not being bombed. The alternative isn’t the US dispatching a ship to protect you, it’s letting you get hit. You’re bragging about your military defending its territory, the bare minimum necessary to be a sovereign country.
Delicious Diversity said:
As a person from a European country I can say there are real, strategic reasons stemming from national interests for why European countries would not want to join in with bombing Iran.
Click to expand...
No one is asking you to bomb Iran. Trump only asked you to help escort tankers carrying oil to your own ports.
 
Last edited:
Maori Kiwifruit Growers said:
Fun fact article 43 of the UN charter says that member nations must allow the UN security council access to their armies when requested (as per later agreements), those agreements have never been drawn up, and thus the mechanism does not exist. Hence why the UN just does "police actions". Also article 47 is suppose to set up a military staff commitee.
Click to expand...
The UN literally doesn’t matter.
 
Last edited:
Accidental Racism said:
If Israel is our only "ally", then the world at large are our enemies. Extrapolate what should be done regarding that as you will.
Click to expand...
Outside of the hardcore moon worshipping governments and a few quasi-communist/general globohomo governments, the world doesn't have a problem with Israel. China doesn't have a problem with Israel. Japan doesn't have a problem with Israel. Russia doesn't have a problem with Israel. India doesn't have a problem with Israel. The Indochina countries don't have a problem with Israel. Most of sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have a problem with Israel. Most of South and Central America don't have a problem with Israel. Eastern Europe and the Balkans (outside of, I dunno, Albania maybe) don't have a problem with Israel. Hell, at least half the Arab governments don't have a problem with Israel anymore. The ZOG obviously doesn't have a problem with Israel (look at the Democrats bitching about Gaza when the US wasn't directly involved, but not saying a word about Israel now when they are litrully fighting as a full ally beside our own forces)

If you look at the governments that do have a problem with Israel, it's pinko retards like Spain and Brazil and Mexico and South Africa, dial the moon worship up to 14 governments like Iran's and Turkey's, and general globohomo leftists like Ireland, the UK, France, Germany, Norway, Straya etc. And even half these governments talk like they have a problem with Israel, but they sure don't do anything about it wrt to glownigger cooperation with Israel and general military cooperation (despite public spats, US-Canada-Europe-Straya-Japan-Israel-South Korea are militarily integrated in various ways to a very large degree)
 
Burnt Fish said:
to put it in absolutely dumb terms from my own loose understanding it stems from a division that occured after the death of mohammed about who should from that point lead the islamic nation. Sunni's stemmed from the faction that believed the next leader should be elected from among mohammeds disciples (supporting Abu Bakr), and Shia believed it should stay with mohammeds family as his family was divinely chosen (supporting Ali ibn Abi Talib).

From that point onward you can kind of water down the split into Sunnis want Caliphate (elected leadership) and Shias want Imamate leadership selected "by god"
Click to expand...
I believe they also differ on the subject of Aisha. Sunnis think that Mohammad was based and red pilled for marrying a 6-year-old and then waiting until she turned 9 to fuck her. Shias believe that Aisha was a 6 year old whore who took advantage of the prophet with her feminine wiles.

draggs said:
Eastern Europe and the Balkans (outside of, I dunno, Albania maybe) don't have a problem with Israel
Click to expand...
Albania :feels: Israel
 
gaysexenjoyer said:
Wtf is even the difference between the Sunni and the Shia anyway, like theologically?

Is it like Catholics vs Protestants or more like Judaism vs Mormans?
Click to expand...
Catholics vs Protestants.

Shiites are your catholics

Protestants are your Sunni.

Except both groups were formed immediately after the death of Muhammad, when his death triggered a succession crisis.

Shiites believe that only the direct descendant of muhhad should rule.

Sunni Muslims believe that anyone can rule, assuming they are accepted by the community and a religious Muslim.

Even better analogy. Imagine if Jesus said what he said in Mathew to Peter, he says, but Peter had a child. Oh, and Jesus had children with a 9-year-old and married a bunch of women.


You know now that I think about it, the founding of Islam has a lot of similarities with the founding of Mormonism..............
 
ThisIsGonnaBeGood said:
Drones really are the only things carrying this zombie regime, and they still can't get their number into triple digits.
Click to expand...
Some Israelis were pointing out to me how 5 ballistic launches is considered a big wave now. Compared to the beginning, BMs have been pounded into the dirt.
They’re relying on drones and even that is a losing battle in the long run.
 
George Lucas said:
The UN literally doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
They're good at making sure Africans don't starve, and thirdworlders literally stop living in mud huts. But beyond that, they have been useless since Kurt Waldheim lead the show

Oh, and they give the world a forum to yell at each other without doing an international incident and allow pathways for back-channel communications between nations that otherwise wouldn't (and can't) be seen chatting with each other.
 
Maori Kiwifruit Growers said:
The UK has two aircraft carriers (and thanks to Labour), no amphibious landing craft (aka those "totally not aircraft carriers," please ignore the VTOL aircraft). And those two aircraft carriers couldn't allow the British to project power. They literally cannot protect Cyprus and Deago Garcia at the same time without US support. It's quite sad. Please don't look into the V-bombers if you don't want your day ruined.
Click to expand...
Those two carriers and the Type 45 destroyer were originally meant to be part of an EU combined fleet, which was a component of the European Rapid Reaction Force (doctrine for which was built around operations in French colonial possessions abroad). The French were also going to buy one, with an option for a second, but they pulled out when it became clear the RRF was never getting off the ground. That's why the RN has sacrificed so much of its capacity; it was assumed that the fleet would be supplemented by other EU member states and that the costs of operation would be borne by an EU-wide defence budget, but the cost ended up being solely on Britain. The cost overruns, combined with falling recruitment, mean that operations have been cut to the bone. It's rare for more than a couple of the Type 45s to be out of port these days, though the Duke Class spends more time at sea.

The RN is still the largest fleet in Europe, on paper (if you include the royal marines and the fleet auxiliary, otherwise the French fleet is larger). Two carriers, five destroyers, seven frigates, four nuclear missile subs (two of which are always on patrol) and six nuclear attack subs (at least two and usually three of which are always on patrol as well), plus a couple of dozen cutters and coastal boats. All told, a little under 200150 vessels. It's the fourth largest navy in the world, after the US, China, and probably Russia, though their numbers are hard to pin down. It's just that the leap from the RN to the next largest navy is at least a doubling, and the gap between the RN and the USN is an order of magnitude.

The reason we can't afford even this smaller fleet is because Britain isn't an empire any more. We don't have the resources to afford to run the sort of enormous fleet the USA has (arguably we couldn't ever afford it, but it's hard to argue budgets in the midst of total war), nor do we have the need of such a huge fleet, as our prior de-facto position as the world police and guarantor of the sea lanes was pretty much ceded to the United States in the 1950s.
 
Maori Kiwifruit Growers said:
Oh, the Israelis are saying they aked the deputy political head of Hezbollah.
Click to expand...
What coincidental timing that I just happened to see this.
No idea who this guy is, so it could just be some bullshit clickbait, but I wouldn't be shocked if it were real at this point. The IRGC already humiliated him when he apologized to the Gulf States for bombing them.
1773795941768.png
Source | Archive
 
Kyria the Great said:
How do you beat someone who just won't accept they've lost and will keep doing the same thing over and over even when you deprived them of most comforts of modern life? Im honestly stumped how to beat a group like that short of carrying out horrific levels of genocide.
Click to expand...
thats the issue we are going to have to figure out eventually. because many of the more actually threatening countries have that same mindset. iran or the IRGC at least reminds me in a way of japan during world war 2. they had no issue dying and considered said deaths as honor. in the end we had to drop the sun on them twice to get them to calm the fuck down.

with iran i dont think that would work. i think we could nuke iran until theres just a hole in the ground and somehow there would still be some willing to keep the fight going.

in my opinion at least i think we need to weaken the IRGC to a point which the people of iran can chase them from the country from that point the remainders will most likely form some new terror organization and from there we just shoot them until none are left similar to what happened to ISIS. iran itself can be saved but only if the people are willing to fight and chase out the current regime.
 
@teriyakiburns

Got any more on the EU RRF? It sounds interesting!

But what I don't understand is why the UK has decided to cripple itself in such a manner? Were the Vulcan bombers really that expensive? Would it have been so hard to buy some type of bomber from the French or the Americans? I understand austerity measures, but there's cost-cutting, and then there is just declaring bankruptcy. What confuses me, an American, the most is that many in power (mostly labor and greens) seem to think they have the power and influence they once had. I only know of two nations that act like that: the Irish and the Spanish, except the Spanish were once an empire. It seems to me that the UK is rapidly running out of money but refuses to do the harsh but necessary things (tighten/lockdown immigration to only those who have actual technical skills or are Drs or something of that level that the British are in dire need of), reduce the welfare system, and aggressively surge ahead in complex manufacturing and force "britishization" as a requirement for naturalization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom