"Is it over?" Topic

So claims the latest Whitehouse proclamation.

"Hours after he threatened to bomb Iran into submission, Trump said the country's regime wants to make a deal and "we'll see if we get there."

"We've had very good talks over the last 24 hours and it's very possible that we'll make a deal."

Let's hope so:it's been a complete mess and even a defeat is preferable to it continuing.

link

Admiral Lord Alan West told the BBC the United States should have foreseen the current stalemate on the strategic waterway.

"Epic Fury has been an epic disaster, if you look at what [the US] aimed to achieve," he says, referring to the Trump administration's name for the operation.

"It was quite clear straight away that as soon as you go to war with Iran, they will close, or try to close, the Strait of Hormuz. And it's almost as if the Americans were caught out by that."

"I find that quite extraordinary.

"West says any reopening of the strait is down to Iran being happy with what is put on the negotiating table."

So, Iran "has the cards" and any deal will have them calling the shots.

"even a defeat is preferable to it continuing."

Says you.

"Admiral Lord Alan West told the BBC the United States should have foreseen the current stalemate on the strategic waterway."

I think the good admiral should be more focused on trying to get the "Five Frigate Navy" up and operational before deciding to make his judgement calls on US Naval operational policy.
But it's easy to do so when sitting in his office in London and tsk tsking before tea time…

Murphy his TDA and USDS is all he seems to have. It obsesses some like a canker. I assume this is the case here as well, as it would seem a new anti Trump anti U.S. Iran diatribe post was unnecessary with soooo many others already active.

People who in their politics are diehard liberal socialist globalist, must despise Trump and his world politics.

We know absolutely little of the details other than what sources, biased one way or another, post.

But the group above must paint it as a defeat as quickly as possible. The tone will again change if conflict resumes, which of course will be portrayed in a negative light as well.

It is the nature of the beast.

The narrative MUST be maintained!

No, it isn't over. But we may have reached the end of the beginning.

I doubt that a one page "agreement" will be enough to end this. Trump seems to like quick deals and ending but I don't think it works like that with treaties. Tried the same with all the supposed new tariff agreements.

There are no quick deals that last.

TBH, I'm with Trump on this one: get something signed, declare victory and move on. Hopefully, the domestic audience will forget what a shemozzle its been.

This war has been a disaster for almost everyone involved — Israel, the Gulf states, the US, Iran itself, and the wider world economy. Oil shocks, instability, proxy conflicts and endless escalation have achieved very little beyond draining resources and increasing bitterness.

The real strategic winners may well be China and Russia, who can only look at the America's entanglement and shake their heads in disbelief at how neatly it has served their interests.

What would Sun Tzu have made of it all?

Probably this: never fight a long war unless you absolutely must. He consistently warned that prolonged conflicts exhaust states, weaken alliances, drain treasuries, and create opportunities for rivals. Against a power like Iran — large, resilient, nationalistic and used to hardship — he would likely have favoured containment, diplomacy, disruption of proxy networks and political pressure over open-ended military confrontation.

Most of all, he warned against cornering an opponent so completely that they have nothing left to lose. A desperate enemy is often the most dangerous kind.

At some point, every war reaches the stage where continuing is less about strategy and more about pride. That's usually the moment to stop.

I think T•••• Needs to stop acting like he's hosting Wrestlemania. "Ya know, Triple H!"
Bragging about how he has a fanatic regime begging for mercy is not exactly productive.

doc mcb +1

"This war has been a disaster for almost everyone involved — Israel, the Gulf states, the US, Iran itself, and the wider world economy. Oil shocks, instability, proxy conflicts and endless escalation have achieved very little beyond draining resources and increasing bitterness."

Respectfully I disagree.

1: "Disaster"? Not at all. It hasn't been easy, or good, but for "almost everyone involved". It's done the following:
A: Gulf States: Showing them that Iran is a major a-hole and they have no qualms about killing their fellow Muslims, or anyone they feel like killing. All if did was unit the Gulf States against them, ostracizing them even further.

B: For the US? Not at all. It proves our military doctrine and capabilities are sound, our C3I and logistics work, and we can project force anywhere. Unlike other countries we have more working ships than a "five frigate navy"….
For the US Politically, it isn't a bright shining victory but it's shattered enough of the Iranian Govt and IGRC to keep them from developing a nuke that they were only too willing to use, for a long time.

C: Israel? Status quo except they don't have to worry as much about Iran as they did, and can now focus once again on Hez and Hamas.

D: Iran itself….who knows? The Iranian Regime/IGRC is only too ready and willing and eager to slaughter their own people to maintain whatever fanatical grip on political power they have and they aren't rooted in reality. This makes them still dangerous to the world and to their own citizens.

E: The World Economy? Ask me if I care. The UK can't get a ship deployed. France and Germany have ships in the med ready to deploy "once the situation has cleared up", (read: "Once the Americans have killed everything that can hit our ships…" Politically…The EU has way too many internal issues with the massive immigration problems…(All those "doctors, lawyers, engineers and brain surgeons" they were expecting to immigrate to their countries and assimilate into the society._ As for the world economy? More tankers loading up in the Port of Houston and the Gulf Coast. I'm good with it. China can suck eggs, as the rest of Europe can. Iran has been a problem for almost 50 years and we've technically been at war with them since 1979. I care not for "The world economy."

Oil shocks? Not hardly, other than pricing, which no one really knows how it's set. It's a rapid reflex reaction rating. And looking at my oil stock investments, I'm okay with it.

"The real strategic winners may well be China and Russia, who can only look at the America's entanglement and shake their heads in disbelief at how neatly it has served their interests."

Really? That's your take?
You DO realize that China has lost TWO of it's major sources of oil to supply it's nation, (Iran, and Venezuela)… Plus the New US/Japan/ROK ties gives China something new to worry about.

As for Russia…well..we're in what? Year 4 of a "2 week military operation?"

Yeah…

So sorry, but no..it's not "the disaster" you portray it out to be.

OVI +1

Murphy +1

So sorry, but no..it's not "the disaster" you portray it out to be.

Yes you are correct. Pretty much everything he posted is 💩…

Can a war be over if it never existed ? This was an excursion, a military action, a….well the CIC says it is a war but also that it is not a war and so doesn't need any approval to continue. Or, if it does, just call this war complete and move on to war 2.1.

Perhaps less time trying to be "clever" and avoid the rules, and more time doing the work would help?

Murphy +1

I'd add, it has severely depreciated Iran's ability to finance and support their proxies worldwide. We have seen the results of that already.

Yes there are pluses and Iran has been hit hard. Trump has done what no other world leader has dared.

But as far as deals go, you guys have not mentioned uranium, or the idea that we might give them back 20 billion in frozen assets. Way more than Obama. We know nothing about our own loses. There is no regime change. I feel it is likely the military told Trump, carefully, that that was not gonna happen with a major military assault alone.

The Straits are clearly a key factor in their ability to respond to pressure, enforcing any terms they agree to will require our long term military presence. Like it or not it's a global economy. Gas prices last week averaged higher in Ohio than in Massachusetts. Big oil sells American oil overseas.

I think Iran will be more energized to rebuild their proxies and weaponry. And yes, the CD helps recruit more aggrieved family members to the terror teams. The Iranian moderates and opposition people who have lost family. Just as Hamas does in Gaza, once you lose a family member, a recruiter appears at your door.,

The beat goes on in the end. The central issues of WMDs and terror proxies may be reduced for a while. The Taliban simply ignored their deal with Trump in Afghanistan.

The only way to win in Iran, IMO, is internal destabilization, fighting Iran on their own terms, I think. And it carries some nightmare ethical considerations. Nobody ever thought they could stand up to the US in a conventional war. We won that part easily. But disrupting their mindset with imternal fear and uncertainty, like they do to us, is how they fight a war.

How would they react to internal resistance from people using their own tactics? If you are in the Guard and suddenly your girlfriend is a hostage, you might lose some of your fanatic focus. Yes, it's an ethical issue to support this kind of behavior. But we are no angels. Plenty of civilian casualties likely in our assault. We don't care about the UN , ignore the ICC. I am not sure about us backing this type of warfare. But looking at who these guys are and what they have done, they are likely to rise from the ashes, and no deal will stop them.

But if we think a deal will resolve the nuke and regime questions, we also have to believe that Obama and Reagan were on the right track doing the same thing. I gives Trump credit for giving it a shot. But no clear win here, I think. A lot of stuff blown up, people killed. No regime change, no uranium secured. Still a problem.

"What would Sun Tzu have made of it all?

Probably this: never fight a long war unless you absolutely must. He consistently warned that prolonged conflicts exhaust states, weaken alliances, drain treasuries, and create opportunities for rivals. Against a power like Iran — large, resilient, nationalistic and used to hardship — he would likely have favoured containment, diplomacy, disruption of proxy networks and political pressure over open-ended military confrontation."

In other words, according to what you think Sun Tzu would've said…"Do the same thing we've been doing for 47 years and expect different results…"

Einstein did a definition of that.

I think in this case, good old SZ would've said, "Take these sh*theads out, because my philosophy doesn't work on a group of people who only want to kill others and destroy the world to fulfill their scammed prophesy."

"But as far as deals go, you guys have not mentioned uranium, or the idea that we might give them back 20 billion in frozen assets. Way more than Obama. We know nothing about our own loses. There is no regime change. I feel it is likely the military told Trump, carefully, that that was not gonna happen with a major military assault alone."

It hasn't been mentioned because there's not enough info on it. And if we give them back back more in frozen assets, (pallets of cash like a certain former president did), then we are essentially doing the same thing which didn't work in the first place.

"The Straits are clearly a key factor in their ability to respond to pressure, enforcing any terms they agree to will require our long term military presence. Like it or not it's a global economy. Gas prices last week averaged higher in Ohio than in Massachusetts. Big oil sells American oil overseas."

Then let the rest of the globe come in and secure the straits also. They have ALL known about this mess for the last almost 5 decades and not one of them decided to do anything about it.
Hell, the "European fleet" is simply sitting and waiting for "improved operational conditions" before deploying to the straits, (translates to: "We're waiting for the Americans to wipe out everything that could put us in danger and actually require us to fire our weapons.")

"The only way to win in Iran, IMO, is internal destabilization, fighting Iran on their own terms,…"

The problem with this as has been shown is that:
A: Nature abhors a vacuum.
B: Due to the mindset and ideologies of the Middle East, internal destabilization usually results in long standing, bloody, civil wars in which nations around the world, pick a side, and fund, train, support and supply. There is usually NO "good guy vs bad guy", but due to the ideology is more of a "which "good" bad guy is the best choice for now."
C: Usually when hardline regimes are overthrown, the factor that comes into power is even more radical and hardline than the group they just took out of power, and in doing so opens up a whole new world of problems. Libya is an example, along with Syria and others.
D: There is a small armed resistance in Iran that is indeed growing but without support. (* cough cough "Guns, Ammo, and Money * cough cough*), it will take a looooooooooong time to form a powerful enough opposition to the current crazy regime, (if it ever gets that far). On top of that, we've already said that we are not "nation building", (Iraq and Afghanistan showed us that folly), and if this growing resistance then says "We need help to be able to fight these guys", then what? Do we send "advisors and trainers" into Iran to help the resistance? Whole NEW set of problems there.

@Murphy

Your argument boils down to confusing the ability to blow things up with the ability to achieve durable strategic outcomes.

The US military can project force, destroy infrastructure, kill personnel and disrupt networks. But does this actually resolve the underlying strategic problem or merely create another temporary pause before the next round of instability, proxy warfare and escalation?

Treating tactical degradation as if it automatically equals success is misplaced. The US has spent decades proving it can dominate conventional warfare but what it has repeatedly struggled with is converting battlefield superiority into stable political outcomes. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and countless proxy conflicts should have taught that lesson already.

Your "I don't care about the world economy" line was particularly unserious. A Superpower does not weaken only through military defeat; it can weaken through cumulative overstretch, economic strain, instability in trade and shipping, rising costs, political exhaustion and endless commitments that produce diminishing returns. Dismissing that because your oil stocks are up is not grand strategy; it's chest-thumping.

And, the fact that your oil stocks are up should tell you something (or several things) about the pressure on world energy demands. The fact your oil positions appreciated is itself evidence that markets perceive heightened instability. You cannot use rising oil-related investments as proof the conflict is strategically beneficial while simultaneously dismissing the idea that the war imposes meaningful stress on the broader economy; the market clearly thinks otherwise.

And your confidence that Iran and its proxies are now strategically cornered ignores decades of evidence that ideological and revolutionary movements absorb punishment far longer than outside observers expect. Hezbollah was not erased. Iran was not transformed. The regime still exists. The proxies still exist. The Strait issue still exists. The underlying political conflict still exists.

So no, this was not some glorious demonstration that solved the problem. At best it was another round of expensive attritional management dressed up as decisive strategy.

Your response on China and Russia is, again, mostly chest-thumping and almost entirely avoids the actual strategic argument.

Yes, China benefits from discounted Iranian and Venezuelan oil but you are acting as though temporary energy disruption automatically means China loses strategically overall. That is an absurdly narrow way to look at geopolitics.

China can simultaneously:

1. suffer higher energy costs,
2. profit from Western inflation,
3. profit from global instability,
4. and the US pouring resources and attention into another open-ended Middle Eastern confrontation.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

And China has spent years preparing for exactly this sort of instability through stockpiling and supplier diversification.

As for Russia, mocking the "2 week operation" line is not an argument. Russia does not need to be brilliantly winning in Ukraine to benefit from:

1. higher oil prices,
2. fragmentation inside the West,
3. or the US getting dragged deeper into another regional conflict.

You are confusing "America can still destroy things militarily" with "America is therefore strategically winning." and all the while ignoring that as a nation our ability to gain advantages through diplomacy has hit rock bottom.

"@Murphy

Your argument boils down to confusing the ability to blow things up with the ability to achieve durable strategic outcomes."

Nope. Not at all.

"Treating tactical degradation as if it automatically equals success is misplaced. The US has spent decades proving it can dominate conventional warfare but what it has repeatedly struggled with is converting battlefield superiority into stable political outcomes. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and countless proxy conflicts should have taught that lesson already."

I think I kind of said that in a previous post…

"Your "I don't care about the world economy" line was particularly unserious.?

Nope. Not at all. I care not about the economies of the EU, and other nations and groups. As with the US, they've had 47 years of dealing with the a-holes, and yet, still kowtow to them and buy their oil, and do business on the side with them. They do deals with the Iranians that would make Mephistopheles jealous with envy, and all under the misguided ideas that "Maybe this time…THIS TIME…the Iranians will do better."

" Dismissing that because your oil stocks are up is not grand strategy; it's chest-thumping."

Then I thump my chest and say "Hey world…if you need to fix your effed up economies that are rocking hard because we're dealing with an almost 5 decade old problem that the entire world, (as well as our previous administrations), ignored and let fester like a boil, then guess what? That's not our problem. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

"And, the fact that your oil stocks are up should tell you something (or several things) about the pressure on world energy demands."

Yeps. It says I made good investments and am raking in some cash. Thank you very much.

"The fact your oil positions appreciated is itself evidence that markets perceive heightened instability. You cannot use rising oil-related investments as proof the conflict is strategically beneficial while simultaneously dismissing the idea that the war imposes meaningful stress on the broader economy; the market clearly thinks otherwise."

As someone who has worked in the oil and energy industry, please allow me to say, "The oil market is ALWAYS unstable." Price setting for oil is literally a guessing game by the hour due to virtually any and every condition possible, and imagined.

?And your confidence that Iran and its proxies are now strategically cornered ignores decades of evidence that ideological and revolutionary movements absorb punishment far longer than outside observers expect.

Never said they were "cornered". I said they were "further isolated".

"Hezbollah was not erased. Iran was not transformed. The regime still exists. The proxies still exist. The Strait issue still exists. The underlying political conflict still exists."

Never said any of this. Not sure where you are pulling this out of but please…continue…

"So no, this was not some glorious demonstration that solved the problem. At best it was another round of expensive attritional management dressed up as decisive strategy."

Okay then, for our purposes here, please tell us what the "winning strategy" here for dealing with the Iranian govt. is… Please tell us the winning, working, plans.
Go on…we'll wait….

"Yes, China benefits from discounted Iranian and Venezuelan oil but you are acting as though temporary energy disruption automatically means China loses strategically overall. That is an absurdly narrow way to look at geopolitics."

Nope. That is how you are interpreting it and want to see it. But you do you dude.

"As for Russia, mocking the "2 week operation" line is not an argument."

Nope. I mocked it because when Ukraine was invaded by Russia the majority of armchair generals and keyboard strategic experts here on TMP gave Ukraine anywhere from 2-3 weeks to 3-4 mos at the most before caving in to Russia.

"You are confusing "America can still destroy things militarily" with "America is therefore strategically winning." and all the while ignoring that as a nation our ability to gain advantages through diplomacy has hit rock bottom."

Once again, Nope.
That's how you have interpreted it.

Please tell me what diplomacy you see us using that will work on the Iranian govt. I mean, it's not like we haven't been doing for almost 5 decades now….

But if you think diplomatic actions will work, then please, show us the plan you have created that WILL work.

Go on…we'll wait.

Murphy +1

We do NOT know the framework of the potential deal, and that is all this is, a framework. So all judgements are only based on one's favorite biased sources of news and how those sources want to frame it, defeat! Or victory!

A "final" agreement without observers ability to go anywhere in Iran and without the ultimate removal of the dust.. will not work.

Removal of the dust is what the President has demanded.

But to those who claim no victory at all, that is laughable.

It will come down to degree of victory.

As long as there is a radical fundamentalist Islamic regime in power anywhere, we must have eternal vigilance!! You can never trust them!

Unfortunately Obama, Biden and the WORLD either forgot or purposely ignored this.

"Ironically, much of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile expanded during the pandemic years precisely because global attention was elsewhere."

Lastly, doing nothing was a joke. As the above quote insinuates.

We saw what Iran had been doing at home. (Nuke enrichment, nuke development, missile and drone buildup, building new and better bunkers, following the lead of the Nazis and moving manufacturing underground, etc. all the world twiddled their thumbs).

We saw what Iran had been accomplishing with their proxies when we ignored them.

Hamas sneak attack in Israel and the following war.
Multiple Hezbollah attacks on Israel.
Houthi's and Somalis
Iraqi militia attacks.
Multiple individual attacks in the US and elsewhere.

I guess as long as it was not you, it was ok?

There will never be any shortage of radicalized Muslims willing to become a martyrs. This conflict did nothing to change that.

The US clearly wants this war over. The real issue is how much pain the Iranian leadership is willing to tolerate and how much military power they retain to cause isolated damage overloading the defenses on soft targets such as merchant vessels or Gulf infrastructure as they did on the UAE a couple of days ago.

The issue has never been the US ability to bring overwhelming power at will but, simply the Iranian ability to not quit.

"The issue has never been the US ability to bring overwhelming power at will but, simply the Iranian ability to not quit."

It's More that Trump is too trusting in deals with people who cannot be trusted unless they are on their knees when making a deal.

He didn't use the strength the U.S. and Israel had and let off the gas when they should have intensified the pressure.

Give them no time to regroup. Take out their ability to move on highways. Their ability to Cross rivers and other areas over bridges. Take out the exact same facilities they are hitting in other Arab countries. They take out a refinery, we take out 3. They use a speed boat, we take out 5 and a harbor. They take out a desalinization plant, we do likewise.

It's the only thing they understand.

As to the innocent women and children. We know they are using 12 year old boys. Here are your women.

Subject: Photos: Iranian women join defiant Army Day march

link

Yes, McK. A stalemate is an Iranian win.

"55 mins agoPINNED

US strikes Qeshm Port, Bandar Abbas, Bandar Kargan; official says attacks not ceasefire breach
US strikes Qeshm Port, Bandar Abbas, Bandar Kargan; official says attacks not ceasefire breach

Bandar Abbas / Iranian Army / Handout / Anadolu via Getty Images
A U.S. strike on Iran's Qeshm Port in the Strait of Hormuz and Bandar Abbas were reported Thursday, with U.S. officials telling Fox News National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin that this was neither a restart of the war nor an end to the ceasefire.

The U.S. military also struck Iran's Bandar Kargan naval checkpoint in Minab, officials confirmed.

The development came as Iran's state-run IRNA news agency also reported air defense activity in western Tehran.

Two other loud explosions were heard Thursday night, while eyewitnesses told Iran International they heard multiple blasts in Chitgar.

Iran's state-run Mehr News Agency also reported attacks and exchanges of fire across Iran's southern Hormozgan province near Bandar Abbas, Bandar Khamir, Sirik and Qeshm Island, according to reports.

Thursday's strike on Iran's major port came two days after Iran fired 15 ballistic and cruise missiles at the UAE's Fujairah Port.

Those strikes sparked anger among Gulf countries, officials told Griffin, though Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine had said during a Pentagon briefing May 5 that those attacks did not amount to a violation of the ceasefire.

Hegseth and Caine described the attacks as low-level incidents that did not rise to that threshold.…"

Seems to be the reason for all.

"Three World Class American Destroyers just transited, very successfully, out of the Strait of Hormuz, under fire. There was no damage done to the three Destroyers, but great damage done to the Iranian attackers. They were completely destroyed along with numerous small boats, which are being used to take the place of their fully decapitated Navy. These boats went to the bottom of the Sea, quickly and efficiently. Missiles were shot at our Destroyers, and were easily knocked down. Likewise, drones came, and were incinerated while in the air. They dropped ever so beautifully down to the Ocean, very much like a butterfly dropping to its grave! A normal Country would have allowed these Destroyers to pass, but Iran is not a normal Country. They are led by LUNATICS, and if they had the chance to use a Nuclear Weapon, they would do it, without question — But they'll never have that opportunity and, just like we knocked them out again today, we'll knock them out a lot harder, and a lot more violently, in the future, if they don't get their Deal signed, FAST! Our three Destroyers, with their wonderful Crews, will now rejoin our Naval Blockade, which is truly a "Wall of Steel." President DONALD J. TRUMP"

I'm sure Iran media claims they sank 3 Carriers, downed 35 aircraft and 24 helicopters.

US Navy Super Hornet disables Iranian oil tanker with 20mm cannon shot

link

U.S. Faced 600 Attacks in Iraq Since Onset of Iran War

link

Armand

Ah, remember the daily "body counts" on the television news every night? Or was it every week? That was a long time ago. Hey, kids! We had television back then!
Thats what the more long winded posts on this thread remind me of.

I believe the actions of today doesn't change the fundamental issue towards resolving this war. The US can inflict damage on Iran far disproportionately to any efforts by the Iranians but, the Iranians retain the ability to, at a minimum, hit some soft targets.

The US believes between bombing and blockade, Iran will fairly quickly acquiesce to their US baseline demands being the abandonment of all enrichment and the full opening of Hormuz with no Iranian restrictions or tolls. The US has pretty much given up on demanding regime change and is likely unconvinced missile numbers and ranges along with support for terrorism can be accurately verified with a regime unconcerned with lying about those areas.

Iranian leadership seems to believe that simply not giving up fully despite bombing and blockade can result in a compromise leaving them some enrichment or some measure of control over Hormuz. The US offer to unfreeze the $20 USD Billion in frozen funds has not yet created leverage. Given that before the war they had no hand whatsoever in Hormuz passage, any slight concession can be spun as a win. Iran doesn't care about the well being of their citizens and still owns a predominance of power. I believe they are placing a bet that they can get US concessions by dragging the war and it's resultant economic pain out as long as possible.

Maybe the world should have taken action long before. Instead they only encouraged this type of action. Emboldening Radical Fundamentalist Islamists is never a wise nor a smart idea.

Before the 2026 conflict, major instances of disruption or impediment included:
* 1980–1988 (The Tanker War): During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran used naval mines and attacked tankers to disrupt oil exports from Iraq and its allies. While shipping was severely disrupted and insurance rates soared, the strait remained technically open throughout the decade.
* 2011–2012 (Nuclear Sanctions Crisis): In response to Western sanctions, Iran threatened that "not a drop of oil" would pass through the strait. Tensions led to a buildup of U.S. and allied naval forces, but Iran ultimately walked back the threats and did not close the passage.
* 2018–2019 (U.S. Withdrawal from JCPOA): Following the U.S. exit from the nuclear deal, Iran repeatedly threatened closure. In 2019, the U.S. blamed Iran for limpet mine attacks on tankers, and Iran seized several foreign vessels, including the British-flagged Stena Impero.
* 2021–2025 (Ongoing Ship Seizures): Iran continued a pattern of seizing tankers—such as two Greek tankers in 2022 and a Portuguese-flagged ship in 2024—alleging legal or fuel-smuggling violations.

"I believe they are placing a bet that they can get US concessions by dragging the war and it's resultant economic pain out as long as possible."

Politics (sorry). The Iranians will be well aware of the deep unpopularity of this stupid war amongst Americans & something called the "mid terms" are coming up.

Hold out for a few more months & they may well get any concession they demand from the new Congress, eager to step back from this disaster.

Ochoin, only if Trump gives up. He is CinC until January 2029 as long as he has the support f 34 senators. We just saw in Indiana what happens to GOP pols who defy him. I think he will stay the course regardless of how the midterms turn out. It is what his base demands and expects.

Ah, remember the daily "body counts" on the television news every night? Or was it every week? That was a long time ago.

Yes I do. As I am sure many others here do … And I served with and know many who there.

Thats what the more long winded posts on this thread remind me of.

Your long winded posts too ?

You are old, i.e. OFM … Are you sure you still have a good memory ?

I know mine is not what is used to be …

The US clearly wants this war over. The real issue is how much pain the Iranian leadership is willing to tolerate and how much military power they retain to cause isolated damage overloading the defenses on soft targets such as merchant vessels or Gulf infrastructure as they did on the UAE a couple of days ago.

Yes, it is a matter of wills. But like the IJFs in WWII. They had their breaking point. The US could do the same. Without nukes … just a lot of very accurate HE, blockades, etc.

OVI +1

doc +1

Compared to the All Stars on this thread, I am very short winded. 😄🍺
I don't cite every "We blowed them up, real good!" news story.
And I don't throw around impressive acronyms.

@Murphy

The interesting thing is that the further this discussion goes, the narrower your actual claim becomes.

At the beginning the tone was triumphalist. Iran had been hit hard, the proxies degraded, US doctrine vindicated, China hurt, the world economy dismissed as irrelevant, and critics supposedly overreacting. But after people started pushing on the strategic side of the issue, your position quietly shifted into something much smaller: Iran is more isolated, somewhat weakened, and nobody has a clearly superior alternative.

Those are very different arguments.

Ironically, Tortorella actually articulated the strategic problem far better than you did. He acknowledges the obvious reality that the US easily won the conventional phase, but that the deeper political and ideological problem survives. The proxies regenerate, civilian casualties create future recruits, the Strait issue remains, no uranium was secured, no regime change occurred, and any meaningful enforcement likely requires a prolonged commitment. That is a much more serious strategic assessment than chest-thumping about oil stocks and "five frigate navies."

Falling back with "tell us the winning strategy then," as though that can vindicate the administration's current policy is avoiding the their accountability to the electorate. Additionally, pointing out that there may be no clean or easy solution does not automatically validate endless cycles of sanctions and military strikes. In fact, it may suggest the opposite: that military force alone cannot produce the kind of political transformation necessary for decisive resolution;and that that decisive resolution may rely instead on diplomacy skills which, at the moment, are looking underdeveloped.

And this is where your argument keeps running into contradiction. You now explicitly insist that Iran was not cornered but merely further isolated, while implicitly conceding that neither Hezbollah nor the regime itself were eliminated or transformed, and that the underlying conflict remains unresolved. Fine. Then by your own admissions this operation did not solve the strategic problem but only degraded aspects of it temporarily. That is not nothing, but it is also a much smaller and less decisive claim than the one you started with.

And frankly, your "I don't care about the world economy" line remains one of the weakest parts of your argument. I am of course delighted that you personally are befitting from the conflict. However, adding additional pressure to an already unstable oil market is likely to hurt many Americans who do not have access to the resources you enjoy. Does the administration consider their situation too or are they the ones who simply need to tighten their belts for a long term strategic benefit?

This has been all through the media today: a confidential CIA assessment reportedly claims Iran could hold out for months despite the blockade.

link

Trump and others would clearly love to declare victory and move on — and even when Iran resumed firing today, the US seemed desperate to cling to the ceasefire.

YouTube link

Once the shooting starts again, it becomes much harder to turn a ceasefire into an actual treaty.

What a mess.

Murphy…of course internal disruption and support for dissidents and regime change means civil war. My whole point is that I think internal destabilization goes to the heart of the matter..who is better off if the same gang still runs this country? We know that's what's really at stake. I won't repeat my concerns about the conventional assault uniting them and hardening their resolve. Iran as a terrorist rogue state is never going away without regime change. No deals will ever deliver change wiith these guys. Reagan did not get this, nor Obama. The real deal is…there is no deal. Just a lot of hot air. The shooting is still going on, but the ceasefire is holding?

I have no problem with you making money on oil investments. Investments are good, the system depends on them, nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't mind my concern about the current high consumer prices on oil products and the broader economic crunch this creates for the American middle class. As has happened a number of times before. Complaining about oil prices does not make me less of a patriot. We want the same outcomes on Iran, just don't agree on how to get there.

As for the uranium and there not being enough info on it, you are right. And that is a problem that goes hand in hand with judging the success of the President's choice for conventional war. He said they were just about to get a weapon. He had to act on his own to stop them. So…were they that close that he took this unilateral action? This was the plan to neutralize their imminent nukes.The whole reason for his decision rested on this, based on his own statements. I think we cannot put this aside…the lack of info on why he went to war as he did.

And Legion 4, for what it is worth, I broadly agree with your larger point that the US military generally conducts itself at a very high professional level compared to most powers historically or presently. I also understand the point you were making about the realities of CAS, artillery, naval fires and urban combat environments. These things are never as clean in practice as people imagine from a keyboard.

And yes, despite the occasional disagreements, I think you and I have generally interacted pretty civilly and pleasantly on here over time, even when we are coming at things from different viewpoints.

Yes I agree … and I do try to interact "civilly & pleasantly" with you. As you always are that way with me and others.

You don't make outlandish, over the top or with some others here ridiculous etc. comments. So I have no "beef"🐄 with you. And IIRC never did. Those comments that I make that my be taken as negative, aggressive are never meant for you. So IMO … we are good … 👍👍👌🖖😎

I know some posters never read what opposes their "enlightened" views. But from my post yesterday in one of many Iranian posts.

I even posted 31 minutes after it was reported. Guess it takes longer to get to the MSM sources in Brisbane Australian.😏

The Huffington Post? 🙄
….

"Confidential CIA analysis says Iran can survive US blockade for months – WP
31 minutes ago

Listen to this article
Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship, the Washington Post reported, citing a confidential CIA analysis delivered to policymakers this week."

I don't put much confidence in "confidential sources". I think they are 🐥 💩's!

Maybe it's just me, but if they find the confidential sources, load them on a plane and drop them off over Iran. 🤔 Maybe with a parachute.

As I posted yesterday, evidence points to this NOT working. (Reason post those to John. Not glorifying US accomplishments. It was news it ain't working).

More today, other than the below.

"US and Israeli strikes hit Iran sites tied to nuclear weapon work, think tank says
2 hours ago"

And here we go again.

"The interesting thing is that the further this discussion goes, the narrower your actual claim becomes."

Tell me about it. You keep coming up with "things that I said" that I didn't say, and things that I said that you interpret differently than what WAS said.
It's called "Cognitive dissonance".

"At the beginning the tone was triumphalist. Iran had been hit hard, the proxies degraded, US doctrine vindicated, China hurt, the world economy dismissed as irrelevant, and critics supposedly overreacting."

Actually at the beginning, I said:
1: "Says you", (to ochoins statement of "even a defeat is preferable to it continuing).
2: My discussion about the "Lord Admiral".

At no time have I made a triumphialist tone. Yes Iran has been hit hard. Look at their exchange rates, look at their diminished military forces. Look at the the game of music chairs with their command and leadership structure. Look at their own people rising against them. Use sonar to check out the latest positions of the majority of the Iranian navy.
Did I say they were beaten? No.

" But after people started pushing on the strategic side of the issue, your position quietly shifted into something much smaller: Iran is more isolated, somewhat weakened, and nobody has a clearly superior alternative."

That's how you are reading it and want it. Is Iran weakened? In many aspects yes. Are they completely defeated? Once again, I say they are more isolated. Going back and re-re-re-reading the posts, NOWHERE did I say they were "beaten".
And if somebody has a "clearly superior alternative", Then by golly show it to us!

"Those are very different arguments."

No duh.
One is one I made, and one is one that you want me to make. BIIIIIIIIG Diff.

Ironically, Tortorella actually articulated the strategic problem far better than you did. He acknowledges the obvious reality that the US easily won the conventional phase, but that the deeper political and ideological problem survives. The proxies regenerate, civilian casualties create future recruits, the Strait issue remains, no uranium was secured, no regime change occurred, and any meaningful enforcement likely requires a prolonged commitment. That is a much more serious strategic assessment than chest-thumping about oil stocks and "five frigate navies."

Sigh…once again, we fall back to those folks that want the "overnight magic pill solution". This is why all of those miracle diet pills keep showing up on market.
At no time did I say any of this was a quick fix. At no time did I say that anything was secured.
I think I also did mention, (yeps I did), the issues with internal conflict, the support of extremist groups, the ideologies of the regime and the people, the mindset and sociological issues based on numerous factors. I even discussed how "Nature abhors a vacuum and that history shows us that when a regime in the middle east is overthrown, it usually is replaced by one that is even more harsh"
But hey, you read and interpret what you want to.

"Falling back with "tell us the winning strategy then," as though that can vindicate the administration's current policy is avoiding the their accountability to the electorate."

Nope. It's not that at all. It's me saying "Okay, lets hear your solution." The US and the World has done 40+ years of attempting diplomacy, diplomatic solutions, agreements, talks, conferences, etc., all of which have resulted in NO positive advances, and some of them have even set the US and the Western world further back in safety and security.
And yet, I keep reading from folks here, "There are numerous alternative solutions that can be employed." so my answer is "Okay then, if those solutions DO exist, then show them to us. Show us the working solution, because 40+ years of operations by people in higher pay grades and with more expertise than you, me, or pretty much everyone here HASN'T worked."

"Additionally, pointing out that there may be no clean or easy solution does not automatically validate endless cycles of sanctions and military strikes."

Never said it did. Not sure where you cranked that one out of.

"In fact, it may suggest the opposite: that military force alone cannot produce the kind of political transformation necessary for decisive resolution;"

Tell that to the people of Carthage…

"… and that that decisive resolution may rely instead on diplomacy skills which, at the moment, are looking underdeveloped.

Once again….47 YEARS of "diplomacy skills" by the US and the western world have resolved nothing. You are essentially saying "let's keep doing the same thing, and expect a different result." And yes, Einstein did have a definition for a term for that mindset.

"And this is where your argument keeps running into contradiction. You now explicitly insist that Iran was not cornered but merely further isolated, while implicitly conceding that neither Hezbollah nor the regime itself were eliminated or transformed, and that the underlying conflict remains unresolved. Fine. Then by your own admissions this operation did not solve the strategic problem but only degraded aspects of it temporarily. That is not nothing, but it is also a much smaller and less decisive claim than the one you started with.

Once again, because for some reason, you are unable/unwilling to understand. At no time did I say:
1: Iran was defeated.
2: A check shows that I cannot find myself in any of the postings saying that they were "cornered". I did say "further isolated". Big difference there.
3: At no time did I ever concede, (implicitly or not), that Hez, Hamas, etc. nor the regime were eliminated nor resolved. That's you once again straw manning. You simply decide that you want me to say this, so you put words in my mouth.

4: "…and that the conflict remains unresolved."
Never said it wasn't. That's a "you thing"…once again.

"Fine. Then by your own admissions this operation did not solve the strategic problem but only degraded aspects of it temporarily. That is not nothing, but it is also a much smaller and less decisive claim than the one you started with."

At what point did I say this operation solved the strategic problem?
What "decisive claim" did I make that you accuse me of starting with?
Did I degrade aspects and destroy elements of operational C3I capabilities, logistics, and capabilities. Of course. Does it keep them from developing and/or acquiring nuclear material and weaponry? Probably not. Once again, (like you), I don't know the full info, as I no longer possess an active high level security clearance to read the message traffic and INTSUMS that come from it.

"And frankly, your "I don't care about the world economy" line remains one of the weakest parts of your argument."

If you say so….

"I am of course delighted that you personally are befitting from the conflict."

Thank you. However, no matter how "delighted" you are, I am still not loaning you money.

"However, adding additional pressure to an already unstable oil market is likely to hurt many Americans who do not have access to the resources you enjoy. Does the administration consider their situation too or are they the ones who simply need to tighten their belts for a long term strategic benefit?"

Wanna talk this point? Sure lets.
1: As said, the oil market is unstable because of the situation, (as with many others). Oil price ratings are essentially voodoo magic because anything and everything affects them, (whether intentionally or not). Gas prices are up in the midwest due to the Whiting Refinery having to shut down (once again), due to flooding and weather. Bombs on Tehran had nothing to do with it.
2: Gas prices in Nevada are affected by the distribution and production of fuel in it's insane next door neighbor, 3: California. And let's talk about California shall we?
From API: "As of 2026, California has 11 refineries remaining, down from 23 in 2000. Two large-scale refineries are planned to close in 2025-26."
So California has shut down over 50% of it's refineries, and with two more planning to shut down, this moves the number from 11 to 9. Nevada has no fuel refineries. So they get stuck with that.
4: Let's talk Texas. Ever been to the Permian Basin? I have. I used to work there. The US has over a thousand wells capped at the moment. Yes. capped for future use.
5: Let's talk Texas tanker traffic, (TTT): From API once again: "Oil tanker traffic into Texas has increased significantly, with reports indicating a more than 50% rise in the number of tankers headed for the Gulf of Mexico due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. This surge is primarily driven by the demand for American-made oil as global supply chains are disrupted."

As for "tightening their belts", may I remind you (once again), that many of the same people who are griping about the price of gas now, are the same ones that proudly stated, (even here on TMP), that "They are gladly and wiling to pay more at the pump for "Ukranian Freedom"…

And as for "tightening belts" I have yet to see the "Odd/Even" license plate and "five gallons only", gas rationing and the lines of the 1970's under Jimmy Carter.

Don't forget also that the oil industry is still trying to recover from the mess of the four years of the previous administration who openly stated that they were "Declaring war on the oil industry".
"Electric tanks anyone?" *eyeroll*

Believe what you want, (you will).
Read what you want and change it around the way you want it to be. (You will).

We're still waiting on your solution to this, since you and others keep saying "there are numerous alternative solutions", or "workable diplomacy".

I'm making popcorn and an order from Badger Games while waiting for your "solution".

Does anyone really think that "internal dissent" will result in a government that hates us any less? There's the small matter if the tens of thousands of Iranians killed.

So, in the long run, a theocracy MIGHT be replaced by a civilian government that hates us just as much, and still has all that enriched uranium. Will it be easy to recover? No. Of course not. But recovering it will be the Number One priority of whoever emerges from the rubble and is in charge.
In such a scenario, with democratic elections, would it be possible for anyone running with the slightest hint of pro-"Western" appeasement? I say "Western" because POTUS has destroyed any support we might have. From his first term, he has bullied, threatened, insulted the blood they shed in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

Yes, we know all this … some of it may or may not be accurate. However, in any conflict there is generally a certain level of risk. Good training, planning, leadership, etc. lessens the risks. But the risks still generally still exist. Again this can only be mitigated so much. The risks may change from 40% to 20%, etc.

And no matter what … the seminal fact has to be considered. I.e. an islamic radical regime, getting deployable nukes/WMDs. Which will have a higher probability to use them. More so than any other nations who have nukes.

So yes bad things, negative events, etc., etc. had happened. For whatever reasons. There are few 100% guarantees in conflicts …

So by bringing up all those things from the past or even recently. Have to be taken into the proper context, etc. And if need be circumspect, learn lesson from past.

At Ft. Benning, GA you would hear or see a saying – IIRC, "When you are up to you Ass in alligators. It is hard to remember your mission was to drain the swamp."

I know many here have never been to places like Benning, Campbell, Bragg, Irwin, Norfolk, etc. And so often some posts here reflect their lack of knowledge or appreciation of such things.

So I take those posts with less veracity, etc.

However, we know about the gators in the swamp, and we remember what our mission is. And yes, it may not be too pleasant, etc.

And all what was posted by some here, means little. When you are currently up to your ass in gators. And at the same time trying to drain the swamp …

I have to say; "I calls'm as I sees'm". Short answer – some don't know squat about gators & swamps, etc.

And I know … I know some will not get that … That is on you … not me …

OVI +1

Murph +1

Inca77 +1

tell us the winning strategy

Again, we really don't know what goes in behind closed doors/tent flaps. We are not supposed. For obvious reasons …

FWIW – it appears to me some wouldn't know a winning strategy if it was one of those gators in the that swamp and it bit you in the ass(s) … 🐊

Legion – gotta say that the oil industry enjoyed substantial profits during those years.

Yea, so regime change is almost always a long messy process. People get really angry, get killed, burn down the house. But how long do we keep trying to deal with the current leadership class in Iran?

Not everybody there hates us. Not all of us hated Britain long ago. It took years to make that regime change and it was pretty grim at times. And the King was no sponsor of terror. And we were not exactly unified and tolerant of our fellow citizens who did not want regime change.

Its the ultimate outcome that matters. Every democracy is flawed. But every Iranian terrorist is a curse.

" But every Iranian terrorist is a curse."

Tort only thing wrong with that is: "Every Radical Fundamentalist Muslim is a curse". Not just the Iranian ones. They are and always will be, to those who will not fall on their bellies in conversion to their beliefs.

Murphy and Legion +1 👍

As I said, things seem active

1 hour ago
US military says it disabled two tankers trying to enter blockaded Iran port

US Central Command said on Friday its forces disabled two Iranian-flagged empty oil tankers before they could enter an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman in violation of the US blockade.

"US forces disabled M/T Sea Star III and M/T Sevda, May 8, prior to both vessels entering an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman in violation of the ongoing US blockade," CENTCOM said in a statement.

"A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet from USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) disabled both tankers after firing precision munitions into their smokestacks, preventing the non-compliant ships from entering Iran," it added.

The statement said American forces also disabled Iranian-flagged M/T Hasna on May 6 "as it attempted to sail to an Iranian port in the Gulf of Oman."

"All three vessels are no longer transiting to Iran."

1 hour ago
BREAKING NEWS
IRGC outlet reports fresh clashes with US military near Hormuz

IRGC-linked Fars news agency said "sporadic clashes" between Iran's armed forces and US vessels near the Strait of Hormuz began hours earlier.

2 hours ago
BREAKING NEWS
Iranian media report explosions near Sirik close to Strait of Hormuz

Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Friday that explosions were heard around Sirik county in southern Hormozgan province near the Strait of Hormuz.

No further details were immediately available on the cause of the blasts.

That confidential CIA analysis of four months

🤔?

Is Iran leaking oil due to lack of storage?

Should we believe unnamed sources? Whose unnamed sources are trustworthy?

I'm so confused.😵‍💫

Where is Al Gore!?

I know. Trumps fault! 😏

"Satellite imagery revealed a massive suspected oil slick spreading near Kharg Island, Iran's main oil export terminal, in what experts say could be evidence that Tehran's oil infrastructure is buckling under mounting U.S. pressure.

The slick, seen in Copernicus Sentinel satellite images between Wednesday and Friday, covered roughly 45 square kilometers west of the island, according to analysts cited by Reuters.

The incident is emerging as a potential sign that Trump's maritime pressure campaign is achieving one of its central objectives: overwhelming Iran's export system to the point where Tehran can no longer move or store crude fast enough to sustain normal production. "

"41 minutes ago
Satellite images show oil slick off Iran's Kharg Island – AP

Satellite images reviewed by the Associated Press show what appears to be an oil slick in the Persian Gulf emanating from the western side of Iran's Kharg Island, the country's main crude export terminal.

The images, taken on Friday, show a slick covering about 27 square miles, with signs of possible ongoing leakage from the terminal, according to Ami Daniel, CEO of maritime intelligence firm Windward AI.

Daniel estimated around 80,000 barrels of oil may have spilled since the slick was first detected on Tuesday, though the cause remains unclear.

"This is the risk of fighting in an oil-rich area," he said, adding that cleanup efforts are unlikely in what he described as an active war zone.

He said the slick appears to be moving southwest and could reach the UAE, Qatar or Saudi Arabia within two weeks."

Victory in Iran is nothing short of finishing it off

link

Armand

Murphy, fair enough — reading back through the thread, you are correct that you never literally claimed Iran was "defeated" or that the conflict was "resolved." That was not the exact wording you used.

But I also do not think my interpretation came out of nowhere either. The overall thrust of your posts was very clearly one of strategic vindication: Iran hit hard, proxies degraded, US military capabilities validated, China hurt, Europe weak and hesitant, critics exaggerating the costs, etc. That was very much the atmosphere and tone you were projecting, even if you never typed the words "mission accomplished."

And importantly, when I brought up things like Hezbollah not being erased, the regime still existing, the conflict remaining unresolved, the Strait issue still existing, etc., you initially did not really push back on those points themselves. You mostly pushed back on the idea that I was accusing you of claiming total victory.

To me, that actually suggests you do recognize the limits here. You seem to understand that:

* Hezbollah still exists,
* the regime still exists,
* the ideological problem still exists,
* and the broader regional conflict is still fundamentally unresolved.

Ochoin's point was not simply "Iran wasn't hurt." Obviously Iran was hurt. The point was that this conflict imposed major instability, economic disruption, escalation risks and long-term strategic uncertainty on a huge portion of the world system while still leaving most of the core underlying problems unresolved.

Thus, Murphy, I think you're reacting more to Ochoin using the word "disaster" than to the actual substance of what he was saying. Iran got hit hard but the question is whether the results so far remotely justify the scale of the operation, the disruption and the risks involved.

Because when you strip away the bravado, what have we really achieved permanently?

The regime is still there. The proxies are still there. The nuclear issue is still there. The missile issue is still there.

Meanwhile the Strait is clogged, shipping is disrupted, energy markets are jittery and the global economy took another hit.

Again, your response to all this basically boils down to:

* Iran got smacked,
* the US military looked strong,
* China got hurt too,
* Europe is weak,
* and while not personally facing hardship believing that other Americans need to do so because you disapprove of some subsection of them. Do I have that right?

Okay, these are your opinions but that is not really disproving the "disaster" argument. It is just saying you personally think the costs and instability were worth it.

And the "show us the better plan then" argument really does not work on me. It is not my responsibility to either produce a flawless alternative grand strategy or else pretend that a massive military effort with limited and ambiguous long-term results was therefore a success.

Bad plans do not become good plans simply because nobody in a forum thread drafts a perfect replacement.

And honestly, there actually were other approaches, negotiations and off-ramps discussed before all this. The administration rejected them. Fine. That was their choice. But once you choose the hard-power route, you own the consequences and results that come with it — for better or worse.

You brought up Carthage, but that example honestly proves the opposite of what you think it does. Rome flattening Carthage is not remembered as some enlightened strategic masterpiece. It was basically annihilation driven by fear, vengeance and imperial obsession. If that is the benchmark for success, then okay, but it is not exactly consistent with the moral standards modern Western countries claim to operate under.

And that is really my point here. For this operation to justify the scale of instability and risk involved, you would expect something far more decisive:

* regime collapse,
* elimination of the proxy network,
* destruction of the nuclear program,
* elimination of the missile threat,
* or some fundamentally altered strategic landscape.

Instead we mostly seem to have temporary degradation, a lot of disruption and the same core problems still sitting there.

So yes, maybe "disaster" is too strong a word for your taste. Fine. But the results so far still look remarkably limited relative to the scale of the effort and danger involved.

At this point I honestly hope a genuinely strong treaty comes out of this, because otherwise history may look back on this as a massive amount of instability and risk undertaken for results that turned out to be far less decisive than people initially implied.

And despite all this, if we ever met in person, while you may not lend me money, I would still hope for a little hospitality at your table and a spirited argument over dinner. Preferably one not interrupted by bottlenecked tanker traffic in the Strait.