"Iran war cost/ duration" Topic

Truly not a political question, just some maths.

Usa is spending around half a billion dollars per day on the Iran war.

Now the request is for 1.5 trillion to carry on.

That suggests the planning that justifies the budget request thinks that the action will continue for another 3000 days at half a billion per day.

Is that a wrong calculation?

Not ‘wrong' — just misleading. Perhaps disingenuous.

It treats war spending like a flat daily rate you can multiply out, which isn't how it works. Big funding requests bundle everything: munitions replacement, procurement, logistics, and future readiness — not just tomorrow's fighting.

But the underlying point still lands.
If you're suddenly talking about trillion-dollar continuity, that doesn't suggest a tightly planned campaign. It suggests either the costs were badly underestimated at the start or the objectives have expanded without a clear end state.

Either way, it doesn't look like a plan — it looks like drift with a very large price tag.

Military did well, executed their orders with their usual high performance standards. The strategic grasp of ME pitfalls and global vision? The buck stops with POTUS. Nothing in Hesgeth's resume would have prepared him for this level of challenges. The grasp of history and the inscrutable nuances of dealing with ME leaders and power bases is not apparent as the war goes on.

The price tag includes the cost of gasoline and every commodity that moves via gas as we remain locked into a single fuel type for most of what we need, stuck with a 20th century fuel agenda in the 21st century. Between the tariffs and the war, every American has lost money in the past year. And the global economy is real, it exists, we cannot avoid the impact. It's the reason why we still import oil and depend on affordable imports for so much of our needs.

I've been corrected – only $200 USD billion was currently to be directed to the war – so only 400 days at the average flat day rate.

I'm just surprised that the costing planning can say something so at odds with the statements on progress. And I hadn't appreciated that the daily rate didn't include costs of restocking – that's not how businesses do it.

"Military did well, executed their orders with their usual high performance standards." You keep rattling on about this, Tortorella.
AFAIC, no-one has suggested otherwise, anywhere. It comes across as defensive and there is no need to be, IMO.

I certainly agree with the rest of your post as well.

I don't want the military to take the hit unfairly for some of the consequences. Maybe I am more sensitive than I need to be on this. You are right.

So we are now worried about the cost of the Iran war to the taxpayers?

Myself I am much more concerned about this never ending conflict, ongoing and will bleed the taxpayers, possibly forever. What was the strategy for this conflict? The ultimate "end game"? Who were the individuals in charge of this, who were obviously unprepared and beyond their abilities?

Iran has been going on how long? This since 2021.

The mullah-ocracy doesn't exactly depend on popular support to stay in power.
From what I've read, we have ablated enough "top" leaders to get down even more hardcore. Like an avocado.
This lot is perfectly willing to embrace martyrdom. They're also perfectly willing to sacrifice any dissidents not equally willing to embrace martyrdom.

But back to the original point. Hey! It's only money! We have been fiscally irresponsible for decades! Why start now?

Gee, why do we need the extra money. We were told over and over that is would only last a couple or three weeks. Plus, I have heard Hegseth say over and over that we have won. Victory is ours. Hmm, could this be wrong?

We are about to hit a deficit of $40 USD Trillion. Our weapons stocks are depleted, and it will take years to replace the expenditures and in the interim, our ability to respond to issues in the Pacific is compromised.

The Administration stated within 72 hours both that Iran was either 10-12 days from a nuclear weapon and that the material was still buried from the strike in 2025 and was not a concern. The Iranian leadership appears to be more militant and beholden to the IRGC than it was before Khamenei Senior was dispatched. We achieved regime change only in the sense that we changed it for the worse.

By all appearances, Iran believes they can win by simply not giving up and that US (and global) energy driven inflation will cause a favorable outcome before their horrid economy outweighs their ability to repress.

I see no clear plan to end this mess beyond the assumption that Iran can be bombed into simply giving up. This assumption does not seem supported by facts on the ground nor US public opinion.

There was no plan to this beyond the assumption that shock and awe would mean they must obviously just fold.
It should have been no surprise there's a coke pint Iran can control. No surprise they would be happy to atack US allies.
I just hope this isn't headed for loss of good men – or more innocent people for that matter.

Here's some things to think about.
1: If the "monetary cost" helps fuel your anger at the "Orange Man", then please remember that this mess with Iran has been going on for 47 years, since 1979.

2: During these four decades just about every major terrorist organization, and terrorist action carried out by Middle Eastern Terrorist groups against Western Nations can be traced back to Iran. Whether they were recruited, trained, funded, supplied, supported etc. All fingers point back to the Iranian Govt.

3: The Iranian government has already shown:
A: That they cannot be trusted in any form of agreement or treaty.
B: They cannot be counted on to agree to stop their uranium enrichment program and activities to develop, possess, and use a nuclear weapon, (Crude or not).
C: That they already have ballistic missile range capability of hitting over 90% of continental Europe.

4: The Iranian government has already show that it doesn't care for it's own citizens/people, and will easily, willingly, readily, and almost happily kill anyone who disagrees by protest. They will abduct, torture, and kill those that they don't murder outright in the streets.

5: The Iranian government has already been found trying to circumvent international sanctions against it and working with foreign powers.

6: The Iranian Government continues to fund and support terrorist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Gaza (of course), and any organization that is designed "To kill Jews".

7: The Iranian government, (essentially a hardline radical authoritarian theocracy), has already stated that "negotiations to prevent them from acquiring and enriching uranium and to develop a nuclear weapon are off the table."

8: This same government has already stated numerous times that once in possession of said item, they WILL use it. In their ideological beliefs that it will help bring on the apocalypse and bring their Mahdi, "their twelfth Imam".

So essentially a hardline government with a theological ideology and no qualms about killing their own people wants to acquire WMD's that they can use against Western (* cough cough * USA and Israel, and Europe, * cough cough *) nations, with the intention of killing tens of millions of people and bringing about apocalyptic destruction in the belief that their prophet can be brought forth.

And y'all are arguing about "how much fighting these b*st*rds is costing", or "Griping about the price of gas".

Here's the question I'll ask you and I'll leave it here then:

"What's more important to you, prevents a radical government wanting to kill tens of millions of people, (including your fellow countrymen, your family, AND YOU), with nuclear weapons, OR "cheap gas, and how much this war is costing?"

Think carefully and choose your answer wisely because how you answer will tell a lot about you.

The argument, above, relies on several clear fallacies.

It presents a false dilemma by framing the issue as either stopping Iran or caring about economic and human costs when in reality responsible policy weighs both.

It also overgeneralises by claiming that virtually all terrorism traces back to Iran, which ignores the role of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS that are actually opposed to Iran.

The claim that Iran cannot be trusted in any agreement is an unsupported absolute and overlooks examples such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which did impose verifiable limits for a period. I would add if Iran is not to be trusted, why would Trump being trying to reach a peace accord?

The argument also uses a slippery slope and fear appeal, treating worst-case scenarios as certainty to shut down discussion while conflating the Iranian government with its people and relying heavily on emotionally loaded language instead of balanced evidence. The above post reads like a party political communique.

It is entirely possible to oppose the actions of the Iranian regime while still critically questioning costs, strategy and the strength of the claims being made by Washington.

"how you answer will tell a lot about you." Yes, I agree. I think my response shows me to be rational, well read and immune to emotional tricks.

Of course "you" would. 😏

So how many Americans and Westerners will be saved by stopping the number one terrorist country in the future?

So America spends billions to prevent deaths of it's military and citizens. It is what we do!

As always, our military gains experience which no one else in the world has.

I view it as a necessary evil. No one enjoys killing and Death!

Murphy and jMC +1

🤔 seems all roads eventually lead back to Tehran.

"While Iran (a Shia-majority state) and al-Qaeda (a Sunni extremist group) are ideological rivals, their relationship is often described as a "marriage of convenience" driven by shared opposition to the United States. According to U.S. intelligence and various investigative reports, Iran's support has spanned several decades and includes the following: [1, 2]

* Training and Tactical Assistance:
* In the early 1990s, an informal agreement was reached in Sudan where Iran provided explosives, intelligence, and security training to al-Qaeda operatives.
* Senior al-Qaeda members traveled to Iran and Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy) on tactics like truck bombings, modeled after the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks attack.
*
* Facilitating Transit (Pre- and Post-9/11):
* The 9/11 Commission Report found strong evidence that Iranian border guards facilitated the travel of al-Qaeda members by not stamping their passports, which helped future 9/11 hijackers move between Afghanistan and other regions without detection.
* Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Iran provided "safe passage" to many al-Qaeda jihadists fleeing the country.
*
* Harboring Leadership:
* For decades, Iran has provided a safe haven for high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders, including Saif al-Adel (al-Qaeda's current de facto leader), Saad bin Laden, and Abu Muhammad al-Masri.
* While Iran officially claims these individuals were under "house arrest," U.S. officials and UN reports indicate they have often enjoyed freedom of movement to oversee global operations, recruit members, and facilitate the flow of money and fighters.
*
* Logistical and Financial Support:
* The U.S. Treasury Department formally accused Iran in 2011 of allowing al-Qaeda to use its soil as a transit point for moving money and arms.
* Some evidence suggests al-Qaeda leaders in Iran were involved in planning external operations, such as the 2003 Riyadh compound bombings in Saudi Arabia. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
*
Despite this cooperation, the relationship remains contentious and transactional. Iran has used al-Qaeda members as bargaining chips for prisoner exchanges or as "insurance" to prevent al-Qaeda from attacking Iranian targets"

I can only assume information not available in Brisbane.

One might say they are just not nice person at all.

"Major Proxy Groups by Region

Lebanon
* Hezbollah: Widely considered the most powerful and sophisticated Iranian proxy. It serves as a political party and a paramilitary force with a massive arsenal of rockets and missiles. Despite significant Israeli operations in late 2024 and 2025, it remains the "central node" of the network. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Palestinian Territories
* Hamas: While a Sunni group with its own nationalist agenda, it has historically received up to $350 USD million annually from Iran. Its operational capacity in Gaza was severely degraded following the 2023–2025 war.
* Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): A smaller, more ideologically aligned group than Hamas, PIJ is almost entirely dependent on Iranian funding and support. [1, 2, 3]

Yemen
* The Houthis (Ansar Allah): Originally a local insurgent movement, they have become a critical proxy, receiving advanced ballistic missiles and drones from Iran. They have used these to target international shipping in the Red Sea and launch strikes toward Israel. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Iraq
Several militias operate under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) or the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Key groups include: [1, 2]
* Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH): One of the most elite and secretive Iraqi proxies, frequently targeting U.S. bases.
* Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH): A powerful paramilitary and political force deeply embedded in the Iraqi state.
* Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba (HHN): Heavily involved in regional operations, including fighting in Syria.
* Badr Organization: One of the oldest Iran-backed groups, now a major player in Iraq's political system.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Syria
Following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime in late 2024, Iran's influence in Syria was severely weakened. Former key groups included: [1, 2]
* Fatemiyoun Division: Composed of Afghan Shia refugees.
* Zaynabiyoun Brigade: Composed of Pakistani Shia refugees.
* Note: Many of these fighters became scattered or strategically irrelevant after the fall of Damascus. [1, 2, 3]

Other Smaller Groups
* Saraya al-Ashtar & Saraya al-Mukhtar: Small Shia militant groups in Bahrain.
* Hezbollah al-Hejaz: A dormant but occasionally mentioned proxy in Saudi Arabia. [1, 2]"

Then recently in Northern Ireland and the UK

"there has been a significant recent development. On April 25, 2026, a car bomb exploded outside Dunmurry police station in Belfast, an attack that investigators have tentatively linked to both the New IRA and Iranian influence. [1, 2, 3]
While the New IRA claimed responsibility for the blast, intelligence reports and security analysts have highlighted a burgeoning "hybrid warfare" network involving Iran and its proxies. [1, 2]

The Recent Attack and Iranian Links
* Dunmurry Car Bomb (April 2026): A hijacked car carrying a gas cylinder device detonated outside the police station. While there were no injuries, the New IRA warned of future strikes targeting officers at their homes.
* Evidence of Cooperation: A 2020 MI5 report previously alleged that members of the New IRA had established contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah.
* Shared Tactics: Analysts from Fox News Digital and intelligence circles note that dissident republican groups are increasingly sharing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) with Iran's "Axis of Resistance". This includes the use of specific explosives and proxy bombing methods.
* Ideological Alignment: The dissident-linked political party Saoradh has frequently expressed solidarity with Iran, including raising the Iranian flag in Newry in June 2025 as an "act of solidarity" against Western powers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

Wider Iranian Operations in the UK (2025–2026)
The attack in Northern Ireland is part of a broader pattern of Iranian activity identified by Western intelligence:
* MI5 Warnings: In late 2025, MI5 tracked over 20 Iran-backed plots in the UK, ranging from assassination attempts to low-level sabotage.
* New Proxy Groups: A shadowy group called the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right (HAYI) emerged in early 2026, claiming responsibility for attacks in London and Europe; security experts believe this group serves as a "front" for the IRGC.
* Election Interference: Investigative reports from ISD Global identified Iranian information operations (coded as Storm-2035) targeting Ireland's 2025 presidential election to stir sectarian tension and promote Irish unity narratives"

OVI +1

"Military did well, executed their orders with their usual high performance standards." You keep rattling on about this, Tortorella.

Yes he and some others here, in Congress and media, etc. are spinning a narrative that is not accurate nor realistic …

Murphy and jMC +1/ea.

Of course "you" would.

Yep … no surprise there …

As I posted on another thread here. Cost in modern warfare is very, very expensive. AI, high-tech, etc. is not cheap. And with the current conflict we may be actually seeing the vast expense for the first time what all the modern weapons really costs, etc. Regardless the conflict is not over … The US is trying to mitigate losses. But it seems like the IJFs in WWII. Some of these fanatics are very ready, willing and be able to die as martyrs. They must not fear death … well the US and IDF are willing to grant their wishes. And assuage their lack of fear of dying …

Ochoin,
unfortunately your counter argument also contains several fallacies:
1. Iran re. Al-Q/ISIS: there is significant evidence that suggest Iran, despite it's doctrinal/religious differences with the above, did provide shelter, material and moral support to those organizations, particularly in regards to fighting Western forces in Iraq.
2. The JCPA is a little murkier, but I'd not even use that in a freshmen level college course as proof that Iran sticks to their agreements. There was/is too much evidence that Iran willfully and knowingly misled IAEA agents during their inspections-although some US agents did certify that they were, then the CIA turned around and said they weren't…no clear winner here..
3. A "fear based" appeal is still rational if the facts are correct (which you have not countered). Iran's government/religious leadership has been quite open about its willingness to use violence (and the proof is overwhelming of their execution of said threats) to impose radical Islamic philosophy the world over. You're basically arguing that if Murphy told a Jewish person in 1939 to flee Germany or you'll regret it, is "just" a fear based argument worthy of ignoring, despite the overwhelming evidence for that argument.

You are correct that it is good and worthy to count the costs, so to speak, but your counter does not meets the standards you've set for yourself.

And to top it off-I actually agree with most of your line of reasoning..its clear that this adventure clearly was not a well thought out plan with a firm grasp of ME history, the history of military force, its consequences and results or a firm grasp of the Iranian government. The Iranian government is not unlike North Vietnam, they literally will fight to the last Iranian as long as those in charge are still alive.

Maggot +1

Generally good assessment …

adventure clearly was not a well thought out plan with a firm grasp of ME history, the history of military force, its consequences and results or a firm grasp of the Iranian government

I have to disagree a bit. The US has a lot of experience in that region and dealing with Iran's regimes. I think the US knows a lot more about what is going on than we know.

One might say they are just not nice person at all.

You should have stopped there.
Just like the 1st Amendment should have stopped at "Congress shall pass no law…."

Taking a daily burn rate and multiplying it out doesnt tell you the cost of a war. That's just not how serious cost analysis works.

Linda J. Bilmes (Harvard Kennedy School), who was one of the economists that actually got the Iraq/Afghanistan costs right, is looking at Iran using the same framework.

At first glance her numbers seem contradictory:

The war is running at roughly $2 USD billion per day in direct operations

But she says the "total cost will hit at least $1 USD trillion"

That only looks inconsistent if you think she's talking about "how many days the war lasts." She's not, she's talking about lifecycle cost.

That includes things people usually leave out, such as:

1. Decades of veteran care (medical + disability)
2. Replacing munitions and wornout equipment
3. Interest on the money borrowed to fund the war
4. Longer-term increases to the defense budget (she's floated something like $100 USDB/year added to the baseline)

We've seen this movie before with Iraq: Early estimates were a few hundred billion but the real number ended up around $4 USD–6 trillion once all the long-term obligations were counted

So what she's really saying is:

The Pentagon's number is what we've spent so far.

Her number is what this will actually cost in the end.

Both can be true at the same time.

Therefore, a daily cost tells you very little about total cost. Even a relatively short war can create "trillion-dollar obligations" and most of the money gets spent after the fighting, not during it

Ochoin said:

"The argument, above, relies on several clear fallacies."

And. Here. We. Go….

"It presents a false dilemma by framing the issue as either stopping Iran or caring about economic and human costs when in reality responsible policy weighs both."

Please tell me since 1979 has any Western foreign policy, (responsible or not), on Iran has actually worked out as intended? Go on…we'll wait.

"It also overgeneralises by claiming that virtually all terrorism traces back to Iran, which ignores the role of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS that are actually opposed to Iran."

Key words here; "Just about", not "every". Also notice that you yourself said "virtually", and 35th OVI came back and showed you evidence of the support.

"The claim that Iran cannot be trusted in any agreement is an unsupported absolute and overlooks examples such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which did impose verifiable limits for a period."

Sure, let's talk about the JCPA, and from five minutes of online research…

"Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA): Iran has repeatedly violated the terms of this nuclear agreement, which was designed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. These violations include exceeding uranium enrichment limits and failing to provide necessary transparency to international inspectors."

"UN Arms Embargo: Iran has engaged in arms trafficking despite an international arms embargo, undermining global efforts to control the proliferation of weapons."

"Iran has a history of nuclear-related activities that raise concerns about its trustworthiness, including its initial efforts to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities dating back over two decades before the JCPOA. Additionally, Iran's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 and its subsequent actions, such as acquiring technical schematics for building centrifuges in the 1980s, further illustrate breaches of trust"

So let me ask you then Ochoin, "Do YOU trust the Iranian Government?"

" I would add if Iran is not to be trusted, why would Trump being trying to reach a peace accord?

Gee, I dunno…maybe he doesn't want to kill anymore, or have NPR, Rachel Maddow, and the hags on The View along with every left wing crap slinging journalist that doesn't know their butthole from a hole in the ground accusing him of "bombing schools", (or like Baghdad Bob tried to do, "Bombing Baby Milk Factories."
It's really not that hard to figure out… sigh…

"The argument also uses a slippery slope and fear appeal, treating worst-case scenarios as certainty to shut down discussion while conflating the Iranian government with its people and relying heavily on emotionally loaded language instead of balanced evidence. The above post reads like a party political communique."

I've said nothing about "The people of Iran", (those wanting to not be killed in the streets by their own govt, and wanting to be able to live without being rules by a hardline theocratic regime), and you know it. There is no appeal to fear.
Balanced evidence? At this point you are essentially on the level of a moon landing hoaxer. How much more "proof" do you need? 35th OVI has unloaded heaps of it out there, and yet there you sit with fingers in your ears. Your cognitive dissonance is working quite well in this discussion.

"It is entirely possible to oppose the actions of the Iranian regime while still critically questioning costs, strategy and the strength of the claims being made by Washington."

Yes it is and I agree. But then what is YOUR proposal to oppose the Iranian Regime and to stop their plans to develop a nuclear weapon?
Go on…tell us…we'll wait….

"how you answer will tell a lot about you." Yes, I agree. I think my response shows me to be rational, well read and immune to emotional tricks."

It shows you to refuse to accept the information and facts given by others. It shows you to refuse to understand that the last 47 years of "Diplomacy" against this regime of religious hardline nut-jobs who are only too happen to "Kill Americans, Jews, and Westerners, (but Jews and Americans mostly)" hasn't worked and won't work.
Also you probably need to remember that many of the people who are griping about "the price of gas" right now, were the ones 2 odd years ago under Biden who were proudly saying "I don't mind paying more at the pump for Ukrainian freedom!" All the while not understanding that they were using Russian oil, and not Ukrainian, but in all honesty, they didn't care. Saying it, made them look like they were self sacrificing, and being self vitreous and "Doing something" and it made them "Feel good about themselves"…

So I'll ask you the questions once again:
"What's more important to you, prevents a radical government wanting to kill tens of millions of people, (including your fellow countrymen, your family, AND YOU), with nuclear weapons, OR "cheap gas, and how much this war is costing?"

Go ahead and answer….we'll wait….

Sorry if I've hurt your feelings but I'm not overly interested in American domestic politics which seems to be the driver of your so very, very long posts.

You seem to have missed this line: "It is entirely possible to oppose the actions of the Iranian regime while still critically questioning costs, strategy and the strength of the claims being made by Washington". Rather a crucial lapse there, my dear fellow.

If you are offering me only two alternatives – do nothing or support a military mire – I reject both. There are numerous alternatives. Like many things in Life, this is quite a complex issue. You should think it through. Read a bit more widely.

However, in case I didn't make this crystal clear in my first post, it is OK to criticise the inept way this war is being conducted without being a covert-Iranian supporter. You should read my responses more carefully.

Action against Iran (diplomatic, military) should be taken. But the cost of this poorly conceived "forever war" will not be commensurate with any positive outcome. Your solution is to keep going on the same path? Really? The military maxim "Never reinforce failure" is widely regarded as a fundamental tenet of warfare (attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte who I believe knew a thing or two).

So keep "asking the questions" if you feel like it. I've answered them twice.

There is no persuasive evidence that Iran's 400Kg+/- of 60% uranium is accessible and certainly none that Iran retains any immediate access to additional centrifuges. By all accounts, including POTUS, that is currently buried and any excavation would be detectable.

The argument is not that Iran is bad in oh so many ways ( genuinely awful) but, rather the current campaign was militarily dominant but strategically dumb. The US knew Hormuz would be closed and Gulf infrastructure hit. The US also did not know either what government could emerge from decapitating the leadership nor what the new leadership could tolerate in terms of damage.

We find ourselves dealing with a more militant bunch than prior to the bombing who believe they can outlast the US not militarily but politically. We have likely destroyed 95% of their capability but 5% is still capable of keeping the Straight effectively closed as simply cutting traffic by 90% affects the global supply enough to further alienate allies and drive inflation significantly. The US administration's current plan is simply to get a reasonably claimable success before getting hammered in the mid-terms as roughly 2/3 of likely voters care about gas prices today and while agreeing Iran is awful, do not give rat's backside when at the store whereas Iran is betting that simply surviving long enough to get the US to give them enough terms to claim the win. I could be misreading the outcome but I strongly doubt Iran gives up terrorism and missiles and gets some net concession on Hormuz and enrichment. The US has discussed remitting $20 USD Billion in frozen funds (Obama gave $1.7 USD Billion in remittance) but the IRGC will expect some give on the big stuff. As of right now, I believe the US is desperate to end this and Iran truly believes no amount of bombing is enough to make them give up without enough concessions.

@Incavart77 – good points.

35th, considering the length and number of your posts, are you trying to snatch the WH Press Secretary's job from the attractive blonde lady who is the current incumbent?

I can only assume information not available in Brisbane.

Probaly ignored in favour of more pertinent/important, local news. The two US-owned, commercial channels may have run the story, but it would be hard to tell in the short programme breaks aired between advertisements. If anyone still watches them.

Murphy +1

"Sorry if I've hurt your feelings but I'm not overly interested in American domestic politics which seems to be the driver of your so very, very long posts."

😳

It doth seem thy posts in ultramodern do nothing but degrade the U.S. president and the U.S. in general… no matter the policy and quite consistently.

It would almost seem an obsession.

"You seem to have missed this line: "It is entirely possible to oppose the actions of the Iranian regime while still critically questioning costs, strategy and the strength of the claims being made by Washington". Rather a crucial lapse there, my dear fellow."

Still trying to figure out why those outside the U.S. would be concerned about how much we will spend on a necessary conflict. 🤔 Not their money. Or is it really just another excuse to bash the president and the US? 😏

Seems like the UK has plenty of their own issues.

Murphy uses facts… others only opinions. Is he supposed to accept those.

Dal

"35th, considering the length and number of your posts, are you trying to snatch the WH Press Secretary's job from the attractive blonde lady who is the current incumbent?"

Well she is taking leave for maternity and they are going to have rotating individuals. 🤔

Wow, the msm thinks they have it rough now! I'd have them crawling to their safe places with their teddy bears. 🧸

When I joined TMP in 2021, I shared my opinions, as many do. This post exemplifies the "opinions" backed with no facts, just a microcosm of it.

They demanded proof of me (which they did not demand of themselves). So I provided it.

However, they rejected my sources, citing Fox, Breitbart, etc 😱. (their sources were, of course, sacrosanct).

So I provided links of many sources, especially from MSM when possible. But alas, they didn't read them.

So I started posting the content, thus making them longer. With AI and knowing how to use it, things are even better(IT background helps 😉)

Notice I do that without belittling the education level of those I oppose. Attempt to correct their English. Correct their spelling. Brag about my educational level. Make sure everyone knows what high level jobs my children have obtained. Make statements like you must listen to me because "I WROTE a paper!". Brag about my refined taste in tea, chocolate, wine and other things. Having a hybrid or totally electric vehicle would be par in this case. 😉

Notice also I don't belittle others leaders or countries, until they have attacked mine first.

Costs?

Subject: Iran's Power Grid in Ruins: The Hidden Costs of a 40-Day War – Iran News Update


link

And

"Pakistani officials confirmed to MS Now that mediators received an updated proposal from Iran to end the war. The proposal has been delivered to the U.S., the officials said."

MS Now? "Baghdad Bob" of the U.S. 🙄

Let's all rise to applaud the Constitutional and legal scholars at the "Department of WAR" for coming up with the idea that a ceasefire stops the clock on the countdown of the War Powers Act.
I'll even bet that once we start bombing the rubble again, that they will claim that it resets the 60 day cycle. Not resume at the 50 day mark. But resets from 0.

Called thinking outside the box. 😉 No fighting, no war.

Reset the clock. 🤔

Thanks John. I'll send that end with my next set of suggestions.

I disregard the claim that if we don't make war the way Trump wants then we are giving into Iran because we want cheap gas. There are other ways this could have been handled. One was that the US was in negotiations with Iran over nukes when The US attacked. Also, Trump told us the nuke program for Iran had been completely wiped out. If so, why the need for this attack? His head of national security said that Iran had done nothing to resume its nuclear program since the bombing by the US. Finally, do you see any of this stopping Iran from exporting terrorism? Anyone? So they are still going to try and kill people no matter what happens here. Why? Oh that is right, we didn't get regime change either.

Well…
When we resume bombing, as we all know we will, we can at least make the rubble bounce.
As for the mindset of the mullah-ocracy, they have had the 12th Imam on hold for over a thousand years. What's another 10 or 20 years? They can read the newspapers and predict what will happen in November of this year, and in 2028.
So a few more layers of mullahs are killed. And there will be riots, easily suppressed, of deluded people to protest. Bullets are cheap, and construction cranes are easily diverted for hanging.
Dig out and renew the project.

"Sorry if I've hurt your feelings but I'm not overly interested in American domestic politics which seems to be the driver of your so very, very long posts."

No hurt feelings dude. You're not that powerful.

You say you are not interested in American domestic politics… and yet….here we are, and you are still on your soapbox.

"You seem to have missed this line: "It is entirely possible to oppose the actions of the Iranian regime while still critically questioning costs, strategy and the strength of the claims being made by Washington". Rather a crucial lapse there, my dear fellow."

Nope. Didn't miss it at all. Didn't disagree with it either. You seemed to miss the cue on that "my dear fellow."

"If you are offering me only two alternatives – do nothing or support a military mire – I reject both. There are numerous alternatives. Like many things in Life, this is quite a complex issue. You should think it through. Read a bit more widely."

* Looks through my house at my 17+ bookcases not including the six that are filled with books on national and international politics, including my notebooks on the classes, seminars, and certifications I have, as well as the real world stuff I did in Intelligence Collection and Analysis on the Middle East, as well as studies in international geopolitics and The Modern Middle East. *
"Gee…maybe you're right. Perhaps I should…" * eyeroll*

I didn't "only offer you two alternatives" (which you cannot seem to understand, or perhaps are so focused on them in order to try to make your weak points stronger).
You keep saying that there are alternatives. Once again I ask you to show them to us. You say they are "numerous" so please, show us a couple at least, you know…ones that work because Lawdie knows YOU seem to know and have all the answers that 47 years of diplomatic actions and operations in front of the camera and behind the scenes on the national and international scenes have failed miserably.
So come good sir! Arrive on your white stallion to the sounding of golden trumpets to the White House and give us the numerous alternatives that you have said repeatedly are there, and yet have failed to provide for us.
Come on…tell us….we're waiting.

"However, in case I didn't make this crystal clear in my first post, it is OK to criticise the inept way this war is being conducted without being a covert-Iranian supporter. You should read my responses more carefully."

1: You shouldn't tell anyone "What they should or shouldn't do." That's bad form there.
2: I did, and at no point did I say that I disagreed with that. In your same vein, YOU should read responses more carefully.

"Action against Iran (diplomatic, military) should be taken. But the cost of this poorly conceived "forever war" will not be commensurate with any positive outcome. Your solution is to keep going on the same path? Really? The military maxim "Never reinforce failure" is widely regarded as a fundamental tenet of warfare (attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte who I believe knew a thing or two)."

Nope. At no time did I say "Continue going down the same path." Now if you have to use straw man fallacies and put words in my mouth, well…all I can say is what we say in Texas…"Well bless your heart."
As for Bonaparte, well, he's one that I wouldn't put a lot of weight on. Yes you can believe he knew a thing or two, and a lot of the things "he knew" weren't very good. But you do you dude.

"So keep "asking the questions" if you feel like it. I've answered them twice."

Sure…since it's fun to watch you dance around answering them with the usual bloviations. So I just refilled my salsa bowl, opened up a new bag of chips, and cracked open an ice cold pepsi, (with cane sugar no less), and we'll wait patiently for you to provide the "numerous alternatives and solutions" you say are out there, but have yet to provide.

But just for fun, and to get your cognitive dissonance in a bit of a grind, allow me to ask this. "Like Mal Wright used to do, WHY are you, (an Australian, IIRC), so focused on what the US and Americans are doing?"
Go on…tell us….we'll wait….

Lovely "opinions".

"Finally, do you see any of this stopping Iran from exporting terrorism? Anyone? "

well they have been exporting terrorism since 1979. Decade after decade. What did the world do? Sat on there 🫏. As long as it was passengers on an airline dying. People in the twin towers, maybe some school, some Jews, or a whole lot of Jews. 🥱 I mean it was no one "I" cared about… right?

I hear the same stuff over and over here.

No strategy. You nor I have any idea what the strategy is. We are not in a need to know position. Nor does anyone in the MSM, nor the Democratic politicians, nor world leaders (well other than the leader of Israel). Have you not wondered why they told none of them? Not a one who would not have leaked like a broken sieve. Like they have before.

No policy previously with Iran worked. I have printed the evidence on numerous threads. But not from those you want to accept? Or ignored because they don't fit your agendas?

Iran only allowed inspectors where they wanted inspectors. Our president's played 🙈🙉🙊.

None of you have listed a competent strategy of your own, just complain there isn't one. Obviously cannot be the ones that went before, they all failed. Even that of Obama the Great and Powerful. 🙄

Just a repeat of the voices of the MSM and globalists politicians.

Back to never ending expenditures. Why aren't you complaining about the sink hole of the Ukraine?

I'll answer for you: Trump didn't start it. 😉

So, what options does the US have if Iran simply refuses to quit without concessions?

That assumes the US resumes bombing and the Iranian leadership which seems to be more militant than before simply hunkers down taking the odd potshots in Hormuz and repressing their people as needed.

Virtually all polling shows US voters with a disapproval of the war north of 60% and the mid-terms are approaching.

Again we have no idea. That is the way they want it. Way too many leakers in term one.

Subject: Rapid Response 47 on X: ".@POTUS on his briefing with the @CENTCOM Commander: "There are options. Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever or do we want to try and make a deal?… on a human basis, I'd prefer [a deal]." t.co/Ycsm8e8txW / X


link

McKinstry

"Iranian leadership which seems to be more militant than before"

Do You have sources in Tehran that I don't? According to (Arab) sources leadership is split. The one side is as militant as the Ayatollah of old. But can be no more so IMO, as the old were hard line radical fundamentalist Islamists, who wanted all our deaths. The other is less hard line according to sources who deal with them ( Pakistan for one).

We in no way have played our final cards. We have only played the first two hands.

If the ill informed place the other party back in power in the mid term, so be it.

But please list all the advantages they would give us, again, that they didn't give us in their previous incarnations?

You want a strategy that didn't work with "the right people" in charge of the military…. I present you with the retreat from Afghanistan.

Want a never ending sieve of taxpayer money and crimes against actual citizens… I present the wide open borders.

Want gas at prices similar to today and for no real reason .. I give you the Biden green new deal policies.

Want people placed in charge based on their sex, orientation and colors and not on actual competence. Even some wearing women's military dress. (Can't tell you how embarrassing that was to many of us).

Do we want that again? If so, than we lose the mid terms.

But I'll take it if Iran is humbled. The cost is worth it.

Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever or do we want to try and make a deal?

Since finishing them forever is essentially both impossible and a level of immorality the US won't go to (we aren't genocidal nutbags), what does the deal look like?

We will get a deal but, the longer it takes the more likely it will diverge from the initial goals. Will it include support for terrorism, missile ranges and numbers, total denial of enrichment, transfer of the existing enriched uranium and a complete unequivocal opening of Hormuz?

What level of the initial goals are considered as necessary to end the conflict?

"What level of the initial goals are considered as necessary to end the conflict?"

I would say for me it would be: (YMMV of course)….

1: The removal of the current regime and replace with a government that doesn't kill it's own people for listening to music, or protesting the government.

2: Elimination of the IGRC as a political and military faction completely.

3: Removal/elimination of any and all equipment and operations designed to either enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, or produce nuclear weapons.

4: Complete and total cessation of any and all forms of support of terrorists, terror groups, and terrorist activities.

Naturally we know they are going to say "NO" to all of these, so I am okay with their C3I structures being reduced to dust, ashes, and rubble, and Mossad playing whack-a-mole until no one is able or willing to take charge, and the people are able to overthrow these jokers….

I believe #3 may be possible or even probable in some form but, I see no chance of the #1 or #2 although agreeing to #4 is certainly possible as it is easy to lie about.

I have no idea how you'd accomplish the first two without boots on the ground as the current bunch don't give a hoot about their own people beyond killing them if they get restive and between the IRGC, Basji and the Armed Forces, no sign of less militancy is showing. They fired their first negotiator and replaced him with an IRGC approved militant. Bombing has, as far as I can remember, never resulted in regime change (Hiroshima/Nagasaki doesn't count as we aren't going there). The clock is ticking if we start bombing again and a 60-day War Powers vote might not pass.

Unfortunately I think the war provides tremendous terrorist recruiting incentives for the mullahs to use to approach families of those killed in bombing attacks, as Hamas has done in Gaza. Like Isis, these guys don't fight conventional war and they don't surrender or go away. Was bombing supposed to get them to surrender their uranium, which we already buried and they can't get it? Or is some part of this not true?

Are we really discussing sending them 20 billion of their frozen assets for the uranium? Like they would actually be straight with us? And what will they do with that windfall? I see Obama having a laugh over this one. More than anything else, this tells me that things are not going well.

I still wonder about a covert war using their own tactics against them. Hostages, explosives, cyber, – how would they like being targets of their kind of war for once?

Murphy McKinstry

Excellent.

And that is "the art of the deal"

Demand the world, but settle for the key points you really want.

I believe he wants to dig through the rubble to acquire the "dust". So he can say he obtained the enriched uranium.

They want the strait officially open. (With Iran that may only be until the next time, as we've seen since 79. This was not the first.),

Israel and the U.S. wanted their navy, Air Force, manufacturing, weapons stock depleted. (Accomplished)

The ayatollah gone (accomplished). Along with many others.

Deteriorate their ability to fund and supply their proxies worldwide. (Well that seems to also have been accomplished) Other than Hezbollah (who pretty much met the same fate Hamas did after October), on the whole pretty weak and quite.

Maybe Iran will offer to off some low life guard thugs as a token sacrifice for killing their own people. They will get to go to "Camelhalla home of all the virgins).

The rest can always be controlled by releasing the "pitbull" back on them (Israel).

But trust them? Never! Again for all our sakes please read about Al-Taqiyya (religious dissimulation) specifically as used by Iranian leadership in negotiations and peace treaties.

Learn the basics of the Iranian Constitution

The existing constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence. It also gives meaning to what has often been mistaken for mere hyperbolic cheerleading: "Death to America."

While America was built on notions of liberty, individual freedoms and limited government control, the Islamic Republic is based upon a global totalitarian vision. Essentially, it seeks a one-world Islamic government derived from Koranic principles and Sharia law. It sets out to help all similar revolutionary efforts across the world, justifying its support for its proxies and other activities abroad. In addition, it was hoped that this vision would be realized by the end of the 20th century, which certainly explains the unquenchable appetite for nuclear weapons as the optimum, most accelerated pathway toward overtaking all other forms of rule.

Here are just a few passages from the preamble and the articles themselves (italics added):

"The Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me' [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world."

The constitution was framed "with all the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

The army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards "will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way, that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world…"

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad."

"…framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support for the freedom fighters of the world."

The constitution dictates not only activities within the territory; it is offensive as well as defensive. Again, its reach is worldwide, not limited to the Middle East, as many in the media seek to posture. The Little and Great Satans are the prime enemies precisely because they represent the greatest obstacles. It was Iran that declared war on America decades ago; it has been the U.S., until the current administration, that has minimized its importance while hoping to peaceably negotiate Iran away from its mission. For those who question how Iran is a threat to the U.S., its prime goal requires the "downfall" of the U.S.

The constitution is based on the belief, in part, in "the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God." The official religion is the Twelver Ja'fari Shiite school, which is to "remain eternally immutable." This school, generally speaking, awaits the return of its Mahdi, similar to the Messiah, and encourages global chaos, which is necessary to hasten his appearance. It is this very global chaos that underlies much of what the regime has consistently fostered."

Enough, you get the drift.

Come on, guys.
The President (OHBP) says that the Iran Conflict is over, as of the ceasefire.
link

Meaning, I guess, that we have achieved all of our Victory Points. Game is over!

"I still wonder about a covert war using their own tactics against them. Hostages, explosives, cyber, – how would they like being targets of their kind of war for once?"

That's one of the most interesting ideas I've heard. There are plenty of Iranian dissidents both in-country & exiled who'd help.

It would be comparatively inexpensive. And of course this could have been attempted BEFORE and INSTEAD OF the current "money-pit" war.

However, there's a moral/legal line.
Targeting civilians (e.g., hostage-taking, terrorism-style attacks) crosses into violations of international law.
States that rely on that kind of conduct lose legitimacy internationally, risk sanctions and isolation and strengthen the enemy's narrative.

That matters a lot in modern conflicts, where information warfare and global opinion are part of the battlefield.

Are countries who don't abide by international law and norms, entitled to them themselves?

"International law is more what you'd call 'guidelines', then actual laws". POTC

Seems we all ignored them in ww2.

Come on John! He is using your idea man! I sent it today. War ended, starts up again and BINGO!! Another 60 day counter begins anew.

He had to notify congress to make it official.

Wow, the msm thinks they have it rough now!

I've got no sympathy for SIW. If they weren't obviously biased and/or solely focussed on ratings and advertising revenue (which are two opposed objectives) then perhaps the gossip-mongers here would retain some veracity.

Well she is taking leave for maternity and they are going to have rotating individuals.

I'm glad I haven't yet had breakfast….

Murphy +1

OVI +1

Dal +1

Unfortunately I think the war provides tremendous terrorist recruiting incentives for the mullahs to use to approach families of those killed in bombing attacks,

They don't need any incentives to become islamic terrorists/jihadis. The GWoT is still going on. IMO there will be no shortages of recruits in terrorist ranks. No matter what we do …