"Iran war cost/ duration" Topic

Legion 👍

It is not a question of naivety as you suggest. It is a question of whether we would be in a better place today without withdrawal from the JPCOA and with continued efforts to negotiate increased protections.
Without knowing the endgame of the current military operation it is difficult to know for sure.
The cost has been high, economically, militarily and diplomatically. We will see whether Iran is more or less constrained in terms of weapons development and regional influence.

We would be a better place today, if Jimmy Carter had not been such a weak willed individual and never had allowed this to take place. Or any president after him had handled this before it got to this point.

But as always kick it down to the next guy.

Actually not just our problem back then.

Their constitution told the world all they needed to know:

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 IRANIAN REGIME WAS BUILT ON ‘VICIOUS ANTISEMITISM' FOLLOWING THE 1979 ISLAMIC REVOLUTION

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."

In addition:

"Any deal with this regime is suspect given its history and its adherence to the Prophet Mohammad's treatment of truces; nothing ensures compliance"

More:

"1. The Global Goal of the Revolution (Preamble)
The Preamble explicitly states that the constitution "paves the way for the perpetuation of this Revolution in and outside the country". It outlines a mission to create a "single world Ommat (community)" and to continue the struggle to deliver all "oppressed nations" from their "oppressors". [1, 2]

2. Unity of the Muslim World (Article 11)
This article declares that "all Muslims form a single nation". It mandates that the government "must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world". This is viewed by scholars as a "pan-Islamist" mandate to lead and unite the global Muslim population under a shared framework. [1, 2]

3. Support for the Oppressed (Article 154)
While the constitution claims to refrain from interfering in other nations' internal affairs, Article 154 states that the Islamic Republic "supports the just struggles of the [oppressed] (mustad'afun) against the [arrogant] (mustakbirun) in every corner of the globe". This provides the legal and ideological basis for supporting movements and proxy groups abroad. [, 2, 3, 4]

4. Absolute Divine Sovereignty (Article 56)
The constitution establishes that "absolute sovereignty over the world and man belongs to God". It views the Iranian government as a temporary caretaker exercising this divine right until the eventual "universal rule of the oppressed". [1, 2, 3, 4]

5. Exporting the Revolution
The document emphasizes that the military and other state institutions are not just for border defense but are committed to the "expansion of the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world" (as noted in the section on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps)."

Pentagon says Iran war costs $25 USD billion. See how it measures up

link

Armand

"

Courtney McBride
Thu, May 7, 2026 at 2:50 PM EDT

(Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved the sale of hundreds of prized air-defense interceptors and other weapons to Middle East partners in deals worth $25.8 USD billion, three times the amount disclosed when the administration announced the agreements last week."

Of course both parties waste nearly as much just to garner power.

Subject: Cost of Election • OpenSecrets


link

OVI +1

It is not a question of naivety as you suggest. It is a question of whether we would be in a better place today without withdrawal from the JPCOA and with continued efforts to negotiate increased protections.

The JPCOA takes into account that Iran's islamists can be trusted. Not just when it was initiated … but more importantly in the near future. Short answer – they cannot be trusted then, today, or in the future.

One can't talk to islamists bent on initiating the End Times …

Without knowing the endgame of the current military operation it is difficult to know for sure.

Again endgame has to be pretty clear. Regardless what some in DC and the media say. And has been mentioned at numerous times.

No nukes …

Can't control a large part of that area which supplies many other nations with petroleum products. Being able to blackmail and hold much of the world hostage to their religious and geopolitical will.

And from the humanitarian and empathetic standpoints. Which many in DC, the media, etc. use as their guiding light. They have to stop slaughtering their own people. Based on archaic Sharia Law/religious beliefs. And the whims of the radical islamists in charge.

And if that includes removing the current fundamentalists islamic Marxist regime. So be it …

Again, there is so much going on behind closed doors, classified initiatives, actions, etc. Which cannot be said in the open, i.e. OPSEC, etc. And most assuredly there are things going on with no one knowing about it, in back rooms, that is extremely classified and very much Top Secret…

Very few have the need to know at this time. Especially the 5th Columnists in Congress, DC and the media …

Plus why should any kinetic military operation/campaign be given out to the media. Let alone the 5th Column within DC. Before or during and in some cases after a current conflict is ongoing. These 5th Columnists in our own gov't and many in the media. Seem to want the US to fail. Which in turn will cause Iran's islamist reign terror to continue. Much of those 5th Columnists will always be contrary and negative, etc. of the POTUS and his Admin no matter what is said or done.

The cost has been high, economically, militarily and diplomatically. We will see whether Iran is more or less constrained in terms of weapons development and regional influence.

That is not totally accurate. The cost is extremely high for Iran in all those areas as well as others.

The USA's price maybe high from a monetary standpoint, currently. And in some quarters diplomatically again currently. Militarily the US losses are miraculously small. While Iran's is very, very high. Demonstrated again by the small numbers of drones and missiles they are currently firing at vessels in the Strait and at their neighboring Arab counties. Plus the few remaining little boats, they have left to deploy. Which generally becomes a suicide mission for all of them. With Army AH-64s, USN MH-60s and USAF A-10s And again before the intellectual academic, etc. here say it – Iran's population are overwhelmingly not Arabs but Persians.

Also note, many of our Arab allies have bought $25 USD Billions worth of US equipment, etc. Which in turn goes to defraying the cost to the USA's war effort to rid the world of these radical islamists/jihadis/terrorists …

Why would that be a bad outcome ?

In reality it can't …

Legion +1 – the true cost of inaction against Iran must be weighed… and that's likely at least 10 million dead after Iran gets the Bomb and a spasm of nuclear strikes rocks the world forever. And that's best case if we somehow avoid a future Iran-caused regional nuclear war from spreading globally.

SBm +1

Some can and moan all they want. About the US POTUS, his Admin, the SecWar, etc., etc. … But just think how much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth that will occur if Iran did fire a Nuke at Israel, then at NYC, etc.

Anyone dense enough to not believe that Iran's Marxist islamists fanatics is not a threat. They must be out of touch with reality.

And to further belief to let instruments like the JPCOA go into effect. They must be very much out of touch with current events.

Yes nobody wants that. But I can still support the military and hope for a good outcome – and have little faith in the top leadership. It two different things. I don't want us to fail, but I also don't believe what our leaders are saying. Seeking a deal after relentless attacks on the last deal. Deals with Iran are no good due to no regime change. A ceasefire that keeps on firing. Offering Iran ten times the amount of money Obama gave them after hammering Obama on his deal. The Iran guys are not falling for the "take the quick deal don't worry about details" approach. They know how to fight infidel invaders in the ME.

And now off to China where a deal for a trillion dollars invested by the Chinese in the US may be on the table. So they can more easily infiltrate everything? After all the talk about a single ballon….

I would love it if we came out on top on all of it. But I think I have a right to wonder about how things are going, and to disagree with the leaders. I have argued for covert war. But any win is a win.

The true cost of the US' failure against Iran shouldn't be measured in dollars but in prestige and credibility.

The failed war against Iran weakens American deterrence, shakes allies' faith in US security guarantees and encourages rivals like China and Russia.

It also ties down resources, deepen domestic divisions and reminds the world that even great powers have limits.

Money can be replaced. Lost credibility is far harder to rebuild.

The failed war against Iran

Oh no -- a war has gone on for two whole months with lengthy periods of pauses for negotiations! A failed forever war, for sure…not like Ukraine, now THAT war is like a lightning war, and the Europeans are ALL excited about how fast that's been wrapped up, eh?

Agree that two months is not much time….but it feels like forever when we hear so much inconsistent messaging about how we are doing and what is happening.

The "it's only been two months" argument is a convenient way to avoid addressing what matters most: whether there is a coherent strategy, realistic objectives and a credible path to ending the conflict.

Wars are not judged solely by their duration but by whether they are achieving their stated aims. If, after two months, the political goals are shifting, the timelines are changing and there is still no clear exit strategy, that is not reassurance—it is cause for concern.

We have seen this pattern in modern history : optimistic initial messaging, vague assurances that progress is being made and repeated claims that success is just around the corner. Meanwhile, definitions of "victory" quietly evolve. Is the objective deterrence? Regime change? Nuclear rollback? Regional stability? If leadership cannot state the end goal plainly, the public is right to be sceptical.

"Give it more time" is not a strategy. Neither is asking for trust while offering inconsistent accounts of what is happening and what success would even look like.

The true cost is not just money or materiel, but strategic credibility. Every month spent without clear direction weakens confidence among allies, emboldens adversaries and deepens domestic divisions.

Two months may not be long in military terms but it is more than enough time to expect honest answers, a defined objective and some indication of how this ends.

What would be seen as failure or loss for the US in this war.
Based on stated goals;

1. No regime change. Hasn't happened and highly doubtful it will.

2. Terrorism continues funded by Iran. Well, I don't see this one happening, agreed?

3. Iran keeps it's uranium and their getting a bomb remains a problem. As of now, they still have it and we don't know how to get it.

4. Iran keeps control over the Strait of Hormuz. It is still closed.

Now, some of these could still change but for now this war has not gone well for the US. Yes, yes we destroyed their small navy and air force. Both can be rebuilt.

The failed war against Iran

More ridiculous comments. SBm +1

I see no one running to Iran's aid. They may have a deep bench but fielding the 4th String. Their leadership is fractured, the hard lines vs. the real liners. They have taken very, very high losses in all their assets. They are trying to buy time. They see some in Congress and in the media whose negative comments, spin, narrative and agenda, etc. only fuels their false hopes and beliefs. That there is an internal struggle and come the mid-terms this all could change. They can keep hoping. It has not been a winning strategy so far. No matter how much some here, some in DC, the media, etc. want to say Iran in winning …

Agree that two months is not much time….

Yes 60+ days is nothing in this situation. And again it is foolish to think otherwise. That based on bias and wishful thinking …

The "it's only been two months" argument is a convenient way to avoid addressing what matters most: whether there is a coherent strategy, realistic objectives and a credible path to ending the conflict.

And you know that how ? You were not in any of planning before and currently. You have never been on an military staff or even served. You have no idea what is going on behind the curtain. Your comments are riff with bias, anti-US sentiment, etc., etc.

And again 60+ days is not that long for this type of campaign.

IMO based not only my credentials[which you don't have] and listening to the Ret. LTCs, COLs, GENs ADMs etc. The US and IDF will start again attacking remaining targets including their leadership, IRGC, Basji, etc.

The US is trying to limit collateral which primarily in the 80% who hate the regime. When this is over, Iran under new leadership will have to be rebuilt. As its natural resources are important to many in the world.

Wars are not judged solely by their duration but by whether they are achieving their stated aims. If, after two months, the political goals are shifting, the timelines are changing and there is still no clear exit strategy, that is not reassurance—it is cause for concern.

Wars are won buy destroying the enemies' assets, inflicting heavy damage and breaking their will to resist. And just because it isn't happening as fast as some would like. Means little … No clear exit strategy ? Were you in the Pentagon when all the planning, etc. was going on ? You Never let the enemy know what you plans for destroying them and breaking their will are. They will know soon enough. But not on anyone's timetable but the US Military's.

And again, things change on the battlefield as the battle/campaign evolves based on the current situation. The moves and counter moves, etc. in the field and political decisions.

If leadership cannot state the end goal plainly, the public is right to be sceptical.

Again, end goal does not have to be publicly known. The less the enemy knows the better. And most are in no position to even know all that is going on. Again OPSEC. To do otherwise is foolish and defies military logic and reason.

Now, some of these could still change but for now this war has not gone well for the US. Yes, yes we destroyed their small navy and air force. Both can be rebuilt.

Incorrect assessment as the conflict is still ongoing … And the US and IDF have destroyed a lot more than Iran's "navy" and air assets.

If leadership cannot state the end goal plainly, the public is right to be sceptical.

Trump and his admin have stated their goals clearly — they're just more limited than Israel's.

1. Verifiable, complete end to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

2. Destroy Iran's ability to project power regionally.

3. Break its capacity to arm and direct terrorist proxies.

Regime change isn't the official U.S. objective, but it would be welcomed and supported where possible.

If you're still skeptical, that's fair game on results and execution — but the "they won't say what they want" line doesn't hold up here. They've said it plainly, repeatedly.

Or Legion is correct..the end game does not have to be publicly known. I don't see where a complete end to their nuclear program is possible without finding their uranium.

According to. NYT news report, Iran still has access to 30 of 33 missile launch sites. The Straits remain a potential hazard for commercial vessels. European satellite images have confirmed damage from Iranian missiles to multiple US military bases in the region. Russia is getting through to Iran with substantial material assistance.

So it's looking like a longer war than originally predicted, depending on who you believe.

SBm +1

Or Legion is correct..the end game does not have to be publicly known.

This is not really rare … by just saying we were going liberate France and no more would not be military sound. The enemy has to keep guessing until it's too late.

I don't see where a complete end to their nuclear program is possible without finding their uranium.

For all the reasons I mentioned before. The best and most safe way is to do whatever has to be done after the conflict is over. It pretty sure the remainders of the islamists can do nothing while the USA/IDF can see pretty much see/hear, etc. everything they do. And have the assets to stop their initiatives, operations, etc.

According to. NYT news report, Iran still has access to 30 of 33 missile launch sites.

Estimates from reliable sources say about 75% or more of all Iran's military, C3I, etc. are gone. Generally, after about 1/3 loses; most militaries' assets are considered combat ineffective.

33 sites still left ? Well I'm generally suspect of much of the medias' reporting. However, I'd think of those will not take too long to remove from the board.

Again, kinetic military actions have to begin again … and finish what was started. Stay the course. Regardless of what many in Congress, the media, etc. say. Their comments are biased, skewed and negative. Again 73 days and counting … for the size of Iran and almost 50 years for them to build up their defenses to do all the damage that they have suffered. It militarily/historically significant. No other military on the planet could do what the US and our best military ally Israel have done. And continue to do.

After the POTUS gets back from visiting the Chicoms. I think the much more modern version of a "Linebacker" type air and sea offensive will commence. And finish it …

The Straits remain a potential hazard for commercial vessels.

Yes but ships are getting through. The big thing that is stopping many of those ships is e.g. Lloyds of London, etc. will not pay their insurance if their ships are sunk by Iran's remaining missile, drone and tiny "navy(?)". But if one notices very few of these assets are being used for this. Tiny compared to 70+ days ago. Again the answer is simple. Severe attrition of all of Iran's military/C3I assets.

European satellite images have confirmed damage from Iranian missiles to multiple US military bases in the region.

Yes but it has not affected US or IDF operations. Some losses or at least being shot at can be expected in any conflict. With as we see Iran has suffered the vast overwhelming majority of losses are on islamists' forces, etc.

Russia is getting through to Iran with substantial material assistance.

But how much, how often, does it have any affect of the battle, etc. ?

So it's looking like a longer war than originally predicted, depending on who you believe.

Well I'm not sure what the actual end date was ? Regardless of what the POTUS, the media, members of Congress, etc. has said.

Again situations evolve, alternate and supplementary OPLANS will be initiated. Based on the current situation on the battlefield. That is SOP. Not a sign of any failure.

The SecWar just said yesterday IIRC. The USA has plans from all contingencies. Retrograde actions, escalations, etc., etc. That is the way the Pentagon, etc. has done and does business. Regardless of what some of our "armchair quarterbacks"/soldiers of fiction here repeatedly post.

E.g.

whether there is a coherent strategy, realistic objectives and a credible path to ending the conflict.

Without knowing the endgame of the current military operation it is difficult to know for sure.

whether they are achieving their stated aims. If, after two months, the political goals are shifting, the timelines are changing and there is still no clear exit strategy, that is not reassurance—it is cause for concern.

. Meanwhile, definitions of "victory" quietly evolve. Is the objective deterrence? Regime change? Nuclear rollback? Regional stability? If leadership cannot state the end goal plainly, the public is right to be sceptical.

Off the top of my head. Those comments show a lack of understanding of how actual military operations and OPSEC, etc. work. Not unbiased assessments, with a minimal knowledge of what actually goes on in any CP, HQ, TOC, etc. at any level.

Anyone can make comments about this or any recent military operations. However, only knowing what the military releases for OPSEC, etc. purposes. Including disinformation. Not seeing or understanding the whole world big picture. Relying on leaks [the 5th Column in gov't, etc.]. Questionable media sources, who want a headline regardless of accuracy. Some of those in DC who have an agenda and narrative which is clearly based on their anti-POTUS, Admin, etc. bias. As well as trying to come back into power as their guiding light.

Not "we the people" who elected them to do the job properly. Plus they work for us … not vis versa …

The rest of the story … Again, the US knows how to plan and execute, etc. Many in Congress, the media, even the Airchair Gens here got it wrong. And continue to do so …

link

Legion +1

I doubt the doubters will listen to all of it, if to any of it. Does not fit their agendas.

Yes, as he says, the MSM did ignore this, as again it did not fit their agenda either.

I don't make this stuff up.

"Broadcast Network Baseline: The Media Research Center (MRC) published an extensive content analysis evaluating evening news broadcasts (ABC, CBS, and NBC). This study tracked coverage through early 2025 and found that 92% of the evaluations and statements about Donald Trump were negative.

Historical Print References: For context on print media methodologies, historical analyses of the paper's sentiment trends—such as a past 86-day study cited by Business Insider—evaluated 74 total opinion/news pieces about Trump, categorizing 94.5% as anti-Trump and 5.5% as neutral, with 0% designated as pro-Trump"

To say there is not an anti Trump, anti Administration agenda is disingenuous at best.

But to rely on those news sources for accurate information on this conflict… 😱

Multiple News Sources:

"Lockheed Martin has entered a 7-year deal with the U.S. Department of War to triple annual production of PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors from approximately 600 to 2,000 to meet rising global demand. This initiative, supported by a $4.7 USD billion preliminary contract, focuses on accelerating manufacturing in Camden, Arkansas, to strengthen U.S. and allied air defense stockpiles. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Details on the Expansion:
* Production Surge: The goal is to rapidly increase output of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) MSE, a critical high-to-medium range interceptor.
* Facility Focus: The primary production acceleration occurs at Lockheed Martin's 2-million-square-foot facility in East Camden, Arkansas, which employs over a thousand people.
* Investment: Lockheed has invested over $7 USD billion since 2016 in capacity expansion for high-priority systems.
* Timeline: The 7-year agreement, announced in early 2026, seeks to address long-term demand from Ukraine, Europe, and the Middle East.
* Supplier Partnership: The initiative includes partnerships with key suppliers like Boeing to boost production of critical components like seekers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
This expansion is part of a broader push to rebuild the defense industrial base and ensure supply chain capacity for the "Arsenal of Freedom"
"

"9 hours ago
US tests MQ-9 Reaper drones with low-cost anti-drone rockets

The US Air Force and General Atomics tested MQ-9A Reaper drones armed with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS), a laser-guided rocket system designed to counter drones and other aerial threats, National Interest reported on Wednesday.

The tests took place at the Nevada Test and Training Range and included engagements against aerial targets using APKWS-guided rockets integrated onto the MQ-9A platform.

The system is viewed as a lower-cost alternative to deploying fighter jets and expensive air-to-air missiles against relatively cheap drones, amid growing concern inside the US military over the cost of countering mass UAV attacks.

The US Air Force and General Atomics recently armed the MQ-9 Reaper drone with anti-drone rockets and tested it on a variety of targets.

Learn more: t.co/pTOFc35Cue pic.twitter.com/pEriQ78gz1
— National Interest (@TheNatlInterest) May 14, 2026"

Legion, I was not suggesting failure, but Iran is or was not much of a conventional military power vs. the US. They fight a different kind of war at a lower level via terror and proxies. Russia helps them extend their survival, and no one will be happy to insure traffic in the Straits with the perceived threat.

By surviving, and with the threat of even limited strikes, Iran can extend the war.
And how did they come within weeks of deploying a nuke if we destroyed their capacity last year as was emphatically stated? POTUS went to war for this reason. So why a ceasefire? We know negotiating with these guys is no path to winning.

How will we know when this threat is finally neutralized? I don't believe a lot of what this WH says at this point, nor do I trust the media. We are still there and still fighting, which does not help the trip to China. The media will criticize and the WH will tell us it was the greatest trip in history.

I hope you are right and we go back and wrap up the uranium issue. There is minority support from the American people for this war, but closing out the nuclear threat will make a big difference.

Legion, I was not suggesting failure, but Iran is or was not much of a conventional military power vs. the US. They fight a different kind of war at a lower level via terror and proxies. Russia helps them extend their survival, and on one will be happy to insure traffic in the Straits with the perceived threat.

By surviving, and with the threat of even limited strikes, Iran can extend the war.
And how did they come within weeks of deploying a nuke if we destroyed their capacity last year as was emphatically stated? POTUS went to war for this reason. So why a ceasefire? We know negotiating with these guys is no path to winning.

How will we know when this threat is finally neutralized? I don't believe a lot of what this WH says at this point, nor do I trust the media. We are still there and still fighting, which does not help the trip to China. The media will criticize and the WH will tell us it was the greatest trip in history.

I hope you are right and we go back and wrap up the uranium issue. There is minority support from the American people for this war, but closing out the nuclear threat will make a big difference.

but Iran is or was not much of a conventional military power vs. the US. They fight a different kind of war at a lower level via terror and proxies. Russia helps them extend their survival,

They fight their own version asymmetrical warfare.

By surviving, and with the threat of even limited strikes, Iran can extend the war.
And how did they come within weeks of deploying a nuke if we destroyed their capacity last year as was emphatically stated?

By surviving and doing pin prick strikes they are trying to buy time. Fueled by members of Congress, the media etc. They hope to survive until the mid-terms …

Whether they were months, weeks, days from getting deployable nukes at this point they don't have those capabilities anymore.

They are fighting like a wounded animal. Still has claws and teeth but nowhere near as capable as it once was. And even then they didn't have all the assets needed to take on the USA & IDF.

So why a ceasefire? We know negotiating with these guys is no path to winning.

Again we don't have all the intel the POTUS, Pentagon, CIA, etc. have. I don't need or want to go into the cycle of a developing situation on the battlefield. And how the situation morphs, evolves etc. Anytime someone says the US didn't not plan well enough, didn't know, this or that is basically a lie. Fueled by hatred for the POTUS, his Admin, etc. Or just plain foolishness …

Plus you can't believe anything Iran's remaining islamsits leaders say or do.

They are like the Knight in the Monty Python movie. Still being belligerent as his limbs keep being loped off …

We are still there and still fighting, which does not help the trip to China.

This trip to Chicomland is a critical/decisive more. A good possibility this could change a number of things in this conflict.

The media will criticize and the WH will tell us it was the greatest trip in history.

Is not that the cycle, is not that SOP, etc. ? The media and many in Congress have nothing good to say about anything the POTUS and his Admin do or say. While they still don't get that is Trump's style, MO, etc. He is a great salesman that is how he makes a deal. I think he does that sort of thing to pull the media and some in Congress chain as well.

Basically all that is going on with Iran is positive. But Iran knows as long as they can do and say things to control the narrative, because they see how much of the media, some in Congress, etc. do not support the POTUS, his admin, etc.

They paint the picture to try to alter the perception to what is going on. They understand deception. The CIA, etc. does similar all the time.

I hope you are right and we go back and wrap up the uranium issue. There is minority support from the American people for this war, but closing out the nuclear threat will make a big difference.

I'm basing my comment again what I hear from very capable, well trained and experienced US Ret, senior officers from LTCs to GENs/ADMs. Plus my limited experience, training etc. when I was an Army Infantry CPT.

But I know enough and understand what those senior officers say, etc. I may not know as much as they do, that is a given. However I know I know more than many of the Armchair Gens and Monday Morning QBs that are part of the TMP population.

Yes, I'm being uncool and an hole …

Iran International

"1 hour ago
Indian vessel sinks after suspected drone attack as Araghchi visits Delhi

An Indian-flagged cargo ship sank off the coast of Oman after an attack sparked a blaze aboard the vessel following a suspected drone attack, Indian authorities announced on Thursday, as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was visiting New Delhi.

The ship was attacked when it was en route from Somalia to Sharjah on Wednesday, India said, without identifying who attacked the ship.

MSV HAJI ALI sank off near the Strait of Hormuz after the suspected drone attack, while all crew members were safely rescued, London-based maritime security firm Windward said Thursday.

Windward said the 57-meter vessel had its Automatic Identification System turned off when the incident occurred."

All the usual suspects … well … only one really …

And there go insurances rates for shipping everywhere…

If anyone is upset about high insurance rates … Just think how upset they will be if Iran gets nukes and first target is Israel.

Who would be their next target ? We should not even have to ask. They should never be allowed to get nukes. And if every islamists in Iran has to die … so be it …

Subject: IED found and detonated in Alabama's sole drinking water reservoir |


link

Iran international

1 hour ago
Senator Cotton introduces bill to bar terrorists' relatives from US

"Republican Senator Tom Cotton introduced a bill to revoke visas from close relatives of terrorists and bar them from entering the United States, after reports that relatives of high-ranking Iranian officials had been living in the US legally.

"Relatives of terrorists have no business being in our country," Cotton told Breitbart News. "My bill would revoke visas from family members of terrorists to keep Arkansans safer."
"
👍

Yes, gentle and peace loving. We need to take off the gloves.

Iran International

"2 hours ago
Khamenei representative says Israel must be punished with 'annihilation'

A representative of Iran's Supreme Leader in Alborz province said during Friday prayers in Karaj that Israel's punishment should be its "annihilation," while also calling for the United States to be punished.

"Punishment for the vile usurping Zionist regime is its annihilation from the face of time," Mohammad-Mahdi Hosseini Hamedani said, adding that "punishing America means ensuring it no longer dares to attack any of the oppressed people of the world."

The cleric said Iran must continue fighting "sedition" and prevent its enemies from rebuilding their strength, according to remarks carried by state media."

We all know, this is a war … Sometimes extreme measures are required. I'm not talking war crimes, etc. But taking out the garbage may be the best solution.

Iran international

"Trump is expected to decide within 24 hours on possible military action against Iran, Israeli media reported, as an Israeli official said renewed fighting may be near."

I'd say no one knows, not even Israel.

Iran Destroyed 42 U.S. Military Aircraft In Operation Epic Fury: Lessons Must Be Learned

link

Armand

Well that number seems to be accurate, and it includes drones, etc. The author seems like a reliable source. But let there be no doubt, the US is evaluating and studying those lessons and more. The article is interesting. However, one must note, unless I missed it. These losses have not affected the US's abilities to continue and complete the mission.

Yes these lessons learned could in many cases be related to a possible war with the Chicoms. However, the situation and terrain are generally different.

Iran international

"43 minutes ago
CENTCOM chief says Iran school was on active missile site

A US military investigation into a blast at an elementary school in Minab, a city in Iran's southern Hormozgan province, is "complex" because the school was located on an active Iranian cruise missile site, US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper told Congress on Tuesday.

Reuters previously reported that an initial internal US military investigation found US forces were likely responsible for the destruction of the school in Minab.

Iranian authorities say 168 students, most of them girls, were killed in the Feb. 28 blast, which took place on the first day of the war."

Yes, I believe centrum.

We have seen this as very common practice with fundamentalist radical Islam terrorist. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., always using civilians as cover.

@Tango

I read the article. Maybe I'm missing something, but the headline alone raises some fairly serious questions.

Forty-two U.S. military aircraft destroyed is not some marginal battlefield detail. If true, that would represent one of the most significant U.S. air losses in modern history, the sort of thing that would likely trigger congressional hearings, Pentagon reviews, procurement shifts, satellite analysis, and nonstop OSINT discussion.

So before I even get to whether the strategic conclusions are right, I find myself asking some basic questions like what exactly counts as "destroyed" here? Actually destroyed or just damaged? Mission-killed? Drones included? Aircraft on the ground? Temporarily disabled? And what are the sources?

Because there is a meaningful difference between: "Iran claims X happened," and "X happened."

I am perfectly open to the possibility that the U.S. took more losses than publicly appreciated but forty-two aircraft is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require unusually strong evidence.

Forty-two U.S. military aircraft destroyed is not some marginal battlefield detail. If true, that would represent one of the most significant U.S. air losses in modern history, the sort of thing that would likely trigger congressional hearings, Pentagon reviews, procurement shifts, satellite analysis, and nonstop OSINT discussion.

Better to learn now against Iran, rather than learning against China. Most of the losses were drones, and lost/damaged include planes hit on the ground, friendly fire (not so friendly), and accidents.

Hostile Fire losses:

* x2 planes lost to Iranian AAA (x1 F15, x1 A10)
* x1 HH-60W helo lost to small arms fire
* x5 KC-135 Stratotanker lost to drones/missile attacks after being parked unprotected
* x1 E-3 Sentry lost to missile strike after being parked unprotected

One F-35 was hit by AAA, but was able to RTB.

Congressional report here: link

Also of concern, I hope we know who the hell buzzed one of our CONUS B-52 bases with drones, closing it down.

Lots of lessons to learn here.

Yes, numbers look bad until you realize that:

"Drone Attrition Emerges as the Largest Operational Shock
Open-source analysis indicates that unmanned systems absorbed the overwhelming majority of battlefield losses during Operation Epic Fury.Airpower strategy reports

Data cited during congressional questioning suggests approximately 24 MQ-9 Reaper drones were destroyed during the campaign.

That figure represents more than sixty percent of reported attrition and demonstrates the vulnerability of persistent surveillance and strike platforms inside highly contested air-defense environments.

The MQ-9 has historically operated effectively against insurgent and low-intensity threats where hostile air-defense capability remained limited."

And

"The Friendly Fire Event: Three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagles were mistakenly shot down by friendly fire (which initial intelligence reported as Kuwaiti air defenses) in March 2026. All six crew members ejected safely. The U.S. Central Command formally confirmed this incident."

And

"…another notable incident involved two KC-135 Stratotankers that collided in midair over Iraq, an event that resulted in six U.S. military fatalities."

So 39 to 42 is the number to date

Very little attributed to Iran.

😱

But its war and in war, one should expect losses. 😳

Hell, we might even lose a ship or 2 eventually. 😳😱

Look at the Falklands

"During the 1982 Falklands War, the UK lost eight British vessels in total:

2 Type 42 Destroyers: HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry

2 Type 21 Frigates: HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope

2 Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Landing Ships: RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram

1 Merchant Auxiliary Ship: SS Atlantic Conveyor (requisitioned container ship)

1 Landing Craft: Foxtrot-4 (operating from HMS Fearless)"

Let us look at aircraft

"The United Kingdom lost a total of 34 British aircraft (10 fixed-wing planes and 24 helicopters) during the 1982 Falklands War. This included operational losses from combat and severe flying accidents in the war zone.

Fixed-Wing Losses (10 total):
* Sea Harriers FRS.1: 6 lost. 2 were lost to ground fire and 4 were lost in accidents, with zero lost in air-to-air combat.
* Harrier GR.3s: 4 lost. 3 were shot down by ground fire and 1 was lost in an operational landing accident. [1, 2, 3]
Rotary-Wing Losses (24 total):
* Westland Sea Kings: 6 lost (to accidents and operational hazards).
* Westland Wessex: 8 lost (mostly destroyed aboard the Atlantic Conveyor).
* Westland Lynx: 3 lost (destroyed aboard ships like HMS Ardent, HMS Coventry, and Atlantic Conveyor).
* Westland Gazelle: 3 lost.
* Westland Scout: 2 lost (1 to enemy fire, 1 to mechanical failure).
* Chinooks: 2 lost (all aboard the Atlantic Conveyor).

Now Argentina

"Argentina lost a total of approximately 118 aircraft during the 1982 Falklands War, including around 75 fixed-wing aircraft and 43 helicopters. [1, 2]
These losses were caused by British air-to-air combat, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, accidents, friendly fire, and aircraft destroyed on the ground. [1, 2]

Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses (approx. 75)
* Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: ~22 lost (workhorse of the Argentine attack force, mostly downed by Sea Harriers and ship-based missiles)
* IAI Dagger: ~11 lost
* Mirage III: ~2 lost
* FMA IA 58 Pucará: ~24 lost (primarily ground attack/counter-insurgency aircraft; several were destroyed on the ground at Pebble Island)
* English Electric Canberra: ~2 lost (bombers)
* Aermacchi MB.339: ~5 lost
* T-34 Mentor / Turbo Mentor: ~4 lost
* Short SC.7 Skyvan: ~1 lost
* C-130 Hercules: ~1 lost (transport aircraft) [1, 2, 3, 4]

Helicopter Losses (approx. 43)
* Puma SA330: ~9 lost
* Agusta A109: ~2 lost
* Bell UH-1H / Model 212: ~12 lost
* Boeing CH-47 Chinook: ~2 lost
* Westland Sea King: ~2 lost
* Aérospatiale Alouette III: ~1 lost (lost aboard the ARA General Belgrano)
* Other miscellaneous/unspecified helicopters made up the remainder of the losses."

Ships?

"Argentina lost a total of 9 ships during the Falklands War, including a major warship, a submarine, and several auxiliary vessels. The loss of their primary cruiser forced the Argentine surface fleet to retreat and remain in port for the rest of the war. [1, 2, 3]

Major Naval Losses [1]
* ARA General Belgrano (Light Cruiser): Sunk on May 2, 1982, by the British nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror. This was the most significant naval loss of the war, resulting in the deaths of 323 Argentine sailors—nearly half of all Argentine casualties in the entire conflict.
* ARA Santa Fe (Submarine): Heavily damaged by British Westland Lynx and Wasp helicopters using AS.12 missiles and depth charges off South Georgia on April 25, 1982. It was subsequently grounded, captured by British forces, and later scuttled. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Auxiliary and Merchant Ships Sunk or Destroyed [1]
* ARA Isla de los Estados (Transport Ship): Sunk by gunfire from the British frigate HMS Alacrity in the Falkland Sound, resulting in 22 deaths.
* ARA Bahía Buen Suceso (Transport Ship): Ran aground during a storm after being strafed by British Sea Harriers. The hull was captured by the British after the war and towed out to deep water to be scuttled.
* Río Carcarañá (Cargo Ship): Damaged by Sea Harriers and later destroyed by Sea Skua missiles fired from a Lynx helicopter.
* ARA Narwal (Naval Trawler/Spy Ship): Attacked and damaged by Sea Harriers, then captured by British SBS commandos before sinking under tow.
* PNA Río Iguazú (Coast Guard Patrol Boat): Beached and destroyed after being attacked by Sea Harriers.
* Two Landing Craft: Small utility craft used for logistics were also lost or captured during the campaign"

Is Iran at least comparable to Argentina in the Falklands War?

I would have said: at least somewhat comparable. But AI says Iran is actually much stronger.

"No, Argentina's military in 1982 was not the equivalent of Iran's current military.
When comparing the 1982 Argentine armed forces to Iran's military capabilities, Iran is significantly more powerful, self-sufficient, and strategically diverse.
The two forces differ substantially across several key areas:

1. Global Scale and Ranking
* Iran: Consistently ranks among the top 15 to 16 global military powers. It maintains an active-duty force of over 580,000 personnel, backed by a robust domestic defense industry.
* 1982 Argentina: Was a mid-tier regional power. While it possessed a respectable navy and air force for Latin America, it lacked the global footprint, troop depth, and strategic reach that Iran commands. [1, 2, 3]

2. Strategic Depth vs. Localized Focus
* Iran: Features an integrated, multi-layered "Axis of Resistance" network across the Middle East. It relies on asymmetric warfare, cyber capabilities, and deep strategic depth to project power far beyond its borders.
* 1982 Argentina: Had an entirely localized focus. Its military doctrine was structured around a specific territorial dispute with Chile over the Beagle Channel and the sudden, conventional seizure of the Falkland Islands. It had no external proxy networks or foreign strategic depth. [1]

3. Equipment and Self-Sufficiency
* Iran: Heavily self-sufficient out of necessity due to decades of international sanctions. It designs and mass-produces its own ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and loitering munitions (drones), heavily exporting them to foreign state and non-state actors.
* 1982 Argentina: Dependent entirely on foreign hardware, which became a critical vulnerability. When France halted deliveries of Exocet missiles and Super Étendard aircraft due to British diplomatic pressure, Argentina quickly ran out of high-tech precision weapons, severely crippling their campaign.[1, 2]

4. Conscripts vs. Ideological Forces
* Iran: Composed of two distinct structures: the traditional military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an ideologically driven, highly trained force that operates intelligence, special forces, and asymmetric units.
* 1982 Argentina: Reliant primarily on an army of untrained conscripts. Most of the soldiers sent to the Falklands were teenagers fulfilling mandatory military service, poorly equipped for the sub-Antarctic winter and lacking the motivation or training of professional forces. [1, 2, 3, 4]
* While Argentina's air force fought with remarkable skill and bravery during the conflict, the structural limits, reliance on foreign suppliers, and lack of strategic depth mean its 1982 military was vastly outmatched by the comprehensive warfighting apparatus Iran possesses."

My point?

Should loses be expected?

Yes.

A little more perspective. I always find these interesting.

"The estimated replacement and repair cost of the 42 US military aircraft disabled, damaged, or destroyed in the Iran conflict is approximately \(\$2.6\) billion, according to a Defense Department report to Congress."

One current congressional campaign:

"Nearly $34 USD million has been spent in the Kentucky 4th district Republican primary between Rep. Thomas Massie and challenger Ed Gallrein, making it the most expensive House primary in U.S. history."

How much could we build, if all the billions wasted on elections was used to build our military instead? 😳

The estimated replacement and repair cost of the 42 US military aircraft disabled, damaged, or destroyed in the Iran conflict is approximately \(\$2.6\) billion, according to a Defense Department report to Congress

So…aircraft losses in $$ terms are equal to 1/7th the cost of the Minnesota Learing Centers??

You just "learing" that? 😉

The only thing they have in common?

The money all being spent overseas. 😉

Ok, one more thing: all $ lost in Muslim countries. 😏

Good analysis of the Malvinas… but I would like to point out a couple of things.

"… Reliant primarily on an army of untrained conscripts. Most of the soldiers sent to the Falklands were teenagers fulfilling mandatory military service, poorly equipped for the sub-Antarctic winter and lacking the motivation or training of professional force"

True… except for the motivation… we ALL know that we were defending part of our homeland… I didn't know anyone who denied that or questioned it… that's how we defended ourselves as best we could (despite what has been described and much more) with the idea in our hearts that our beloved Islands were ours.

Motivation was the only thing that was in abundance…

"… Argentina's air force fought with remarkable skill and bravery during the conflict.."

True…But we… the poor infantrymen… poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly fed, lacking any transport, no medicine on hand, no ammunition reserves (only enough for a few hours of combat), very poorly led by the High Command, completely abandoned by the middle ranks (Captain, Major, Lieutenant General), left in charge by the lower ranks (Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant), and with the highest-ranking NCOs corrupt (stealing food and amenities from the troops), fleeing to Port Stanley at the first shot or begging to be allowed to surrender… even so, I think we showed enough bravery… if not… read the book "No Picnic" by the British…

Armand

OVI +1

SBm +1

Forty-two U.S. military aircraft destroyed is not some marginal battlefield detail. If true, that would represent one of the most significant U.S. air losses in modern history, the sort of thing that would likely trigger congressional hearings, Pentagon reviews, procurement shifts, satellite analysis, and nonstop OSINT discussion.

Well when you mean modern history you are saying 21st Century, yes ?

Yes that number is large, but in does include drones. Which are not really expendable, but since being unmanned. That is the plus side.

From another standpoint, very few pilots were lost to enemy fires.

I find myself asking some basic questions like what exactly counts as "destroyed" here? Actually destroyed or just damaged? Mission-killed? Drones included? Aircraft on the ground? Temporarily disabled? And what are the sources?

Agreed … But I'd think the author would know all that. At least based on her credentials. And yes, just like in Gaza or the Iran school bombing. You cannot trust any numbers reported by militant, radical islamists. Again, Gaza clearly showed that …

Because there is a meaningful difference between: "Iran claims X happened," and "X happened."

Bingo ! islamists lie …

I am perfectly open to the possibility that the U.S. took more losses than publicly appreciated but forty-two aircraft is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require unusually strong evidence.

Again based on the author's credentials it appears to be accurate.

But let there be no doubt … reports, journalists, the media, etc. in general have known to be wrong. Sometimes very wrong. That being said, since there really is not any counterclaims, etc. from the Pentagon, CENTCOM, etc. Those numbers may be accurate, AFAIK …

But the first report is generally wrong …

Report to Congress on U.S. Aircraft Combat Losses in Operation Epic Fury

link

Armand

I don't think there is anything in that article that we have not seen or read before …

Yep. I don't count drones as "aircraft losses." Here are the losses to Iranian fire:

Most of the losses were drones, and lost/damaged include planes hit on the ground, friendly fire (not so friendly), and accidents.

Hostile Fire losses:

* x2 planes lost to Iranian AAA (x1 F15, x1 A10)
* x1 HH-60W helo lost to small arms fire
* x5 KC-135 Stratotanker lost to drones/missile attacks after being parked unprotected
* x1 E-3 Sentry lost to missile strike after being parked unprotected

One F-35 was hit by AAA, but was able to RTB. In all cases, no crew losses, including from "friendly" fire. Sadly, crew was lost to mishap and accidents.