"Iran – America's Vietnam?" Topic

Ochoin

maybe we should all follow the lead of your leader, Anthony Albanese, partaking in a game of "shag, marry, date" while on the "Bush Deep podcast " with host Nikki Osborne, published on Friday.

His choices in the game:

"Kylie Minogue, Nicole Kidman or Rhonda Burchmore?"

He chose Kylie Minogue.

Now there is true world leadership, we could all learn from his international expertise.

Considering the game question, I have to assume the "bush" in the title, has nothing to do with the outback and is not always a reflection of the Host's alter ego.

How Not to Turn Iran into Vietnam

link

Armand

Thanks, Armand- a thoughtful piece. And from a Brigadier-general no less. He clearly thinks the situation is dire.

I'd agree that there are really only two courses of action open to the Americans.

First would be to accept the status quo, offer a treaty that gives more or less everything to Iran (including reparations) & pretend the US hadn't been defeated.

Second would be a fairly major invasion (as suggested in the article), hopefully engage support of the Iranian opposition
and change the regime. Possible? Hmmm, even the author of the article suggests this would only fly with widespread support from the American people & this would appear to be doubtful.

There is a third option which is essentially do nothing other than spasmodically bomb the place but no-one thinks this is a good idea.

A votre service mon cher ami…

Agree with you… don't miss this one from other thread…

link

Excellent …

Armand

Ochoin,

I think he tried the first one. We ended the blockade, lifted sanctions, allowed Iran to sell their oil on the open market and started to pay them billions of dollar. Not to mention no regime change, no taking of the enriched uranium and they could keep their ballistic missiles. All while claiming we won the war.

I doubt the US would try a major invasion. Way to costly, American people oppose it and Iran is a pretty big country.

This is why the administration is stuck. They have gone back to bombing, something that didn't work the first time. With no real end in sight.

I'd read that one, Armand. Like the whole sorry mess, the article was depressing. But thanks for digging these type of articles up. They add gravitas to an often superficial dialogue.

@ Grattan – I think you're right.

From 'The White Swan' by Domhnall Ruadh Choruna.

" A Mhagaidh na bi tùrsach, a rùin, ged gheibhinn bàs,
Cò am fear am measg an t-sluaigh a mhaireas buan gu bràth?
Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuairt mar dhìthein buaile fàs;
Bheir siantanan na bliadhna sìos 's nach tog a' ghrian an àird."

There will be no major ground invasion. Most likely no boot on the ground …

What has to be done can, will and is being in the air and on the sea.

As well as economic sanctions.

The Strait we never closed. Then and now that Iran has lost so many assets. All they can do is fire a few missiles or drones. And they know that is enough for many of those ships to afraid to move. If they hit one even inflicting minor damage. That is enough to scare the other ship into freezing in place.

And from a Brigadier-general no less. He clearly thinks the situation is dire.

I have no idea where that GEN came up with that paradigm ? Many other senior officers have said different. Maybe he missed that day at combined arms, etc. schools.

Dire is an over estimation of the situation, IMO. The US is just trying limit destruction the non-combatants, infrastructures, etc.

The resistance from the IRGC is severely attrited. They keep buffing, trying to hold on, hoping for things change during the midterms or even when a new POTUS is elected. Iran's islamists are in dire straits. And they know it. Their goal is to hold on/try to survive.

However, there have been at least 3 days of air strikes, drones, etc. on Iran's remaining islamists assets. And that will most likely continue … They have to … the destruction Iran's islamists. At least most of them. It can't done ? Wrong … look was the US did to ISIS in the POTUS first term. Most of ISIS today or dead or in prison camps.

Most retired combat leaders see what is going on as the exploitation phase for the campaign.

This is why the administration is stuck. They have gone back to bombing, something that didn't work the first time. With no real end in sight.

You must be watching a different war, than I and many others are. Or don't know how to accurately evaluate what is really going on.

The US is not stuck … it can come and go as we please. The early phases of the campaign had done a lot of damage to most of Iran's islamist assets. They don't want to standdown primarily because of their religious beliefs. Plus those islamists who survive know they will be hunted down like the Nazis were …

Just because the US timetable does not match some of the "armchair warriors" estimates here. Or don't agree or don't really know what is going on behind closed doors.

I don't know many things that are going on. I'm not there … But I firmly believe the US will be come out on top. Along with Israel.

The way for this to happen is to continue to strike critical and important targets and keep killing the islamists. They are actually more like in a similar situation as the 3d Riech was. As the Allies were entering Germany in 1945.

And they know it …

Legion my friend, don't rule out "any" ground forces. Never rule out anything.
+1

We started attacking in the daytime again. Thus proving we have complete air superiority and choice of targets.

We finally used sea drones to take out naval facilities.

"Use of Sea Drones: In an unprecedented move, the US used armed unmanned sea drones in combat to strike a submarine and ship maintenance facility at the Bandar Abbas Naval Base."

I said before and will again: Trump is not going full out. He is still holding out the hand and hope of negotiations, (Why? He is too nice to these people 😡). How can you know this is true? Israel has not been invited to take part again. He is also still holding back from certain targets.

I've noticed that some above have AGAIN added objectives to this war, that were NEVER real objectives. 🙄 a bit disingenuous, but not surprising.😏

Where does all the inside knowledge of Iran and the happenings inside it, that some here seem to claim they have, come from? Inside sources in Iran? How? Since the government has it locked down.

Otherwise you are just siting Iranian governmental sources, as trustworthy as Russian sources on the Ukrainian war… and we know how you feel about those sources.

It is easy to find information supporting one side or another. How true is the one below? Well this is via Goggle AI. Google isn't exactly a positive source for the administration. 😏

Also AI accesses a huge amount of online sources either directly or via sources like "Lexus Nexus". Many more than one web link. This particular one sited approximately 8 sources.

The internal dissension within Iran has reached unprecedented, critical levels, driven by a combination of a leaked presidency report detailing record public anger, violent civil unrest, and deep cracks within the regime's political leadership. [1, 2, 3]

Record Public Anger and Leaked Resistance
* Leaked Presidency Data: A confidential report by Iran's presidency leaked this week reveals the highest level of public anger ever recorded in any country. The internal document explicitly finds that nine out of ten Iranians want immediate change. [1]
* Underground Sabotage Operations: Coordinated opposition networks, known as PMOI Resistance Units, have launched a nationwide arson and sabotage campaign. Across major cities, including Mashhad, Isfahan, and Tehran, cells are systematically torching billboards and state banners of newly installed Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and former leader Ali Khamenei. [1, 2]
* Prison Uprisings: Inside the notorious Evin Prison, political women prisoners launched a fierce physical resistance against guards after authorities attempted to forcibly mix political protesters with general-crime convicts to dilute the opposition movement. [1]

Fierce Regime Fracturing and Media Gags
* Blaming the President: Following the recent collapse of a brief Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the West, political factions have aggressively splintered. High-ranking hardliners are positioning President Masoud Pezeshkian to be the exclusive scapegoat for the failed diplomatic efforts, sparking open public conflict between his office and the hardline legislature. [1, 2, 3]
* Unsanctioned Nuclear Talks: Fractures in command were exposed when parliament officials revealed that Iranian negotiators discussed nuclear policy in Islamabad without the Supreme Leader's explicit authorization, showing a severe breakdown in state cohesion. [1]
* Emergency Media Blackouts: Desperate to hide these internal rifts, Iran's Press Supervisory Board issued an emergency directive ordering all domestic media to strictly avoid publishing narrative accounts of internal disputes, factional differences, or any content highlighting social divisions. [1]

A Society Living in "Limbo"
* Psychological Burnout: Domestic surveys show that over 60% of the population experiences extreme hopelessness. Decades of high inflation and severe state crackdowns—superimposed on a jarring, daily oscillation between total war and temporary ceasefires—have pushed public tolerance past its breaking point. [1]
* Mass Desires to Flee: The ongoing internal instability has caused an abrupt spike in brain drain, with nearly one-third of the country's population now expressing a desire to emigrate, a number that drastically rises among highly educated Iranian youths.

From Iran International

"Petition tells Iran hardliners: Fight the US war yourselves"

Nearly 100,000 people signed a petition within a day urging members of Iran's ultraconservative Paydari Front to visit the southern war zone, reflecting anger at hardliners who oppose talks with Washington while remaining far from the fighting.
The petition, hosted on the Iranian platform Karzar, calls on prominent Paydari figures, including lawmakers Hamid Rasaei and Amirhossein Sabeti, to travel to the southern cities of Sirik and Bandar Abbas, where residents have faced repeated attacks during the conflict.
Its authors said such a visit would help the politicians "better understand the realities on the ground" and avoid decisions that could endanger civilians.
Challenge to hardline rhetoric
The petition says residents of southern Iran have lived under "direct and around-the-clock threats" while military personnel and civilians alike face fears of further attacks and damage to critical infrastructure.
It argues that politicians who have called for a wartime posture should experience those conditions themselves, saying a field visit could lead to "more realistic decision-making" and greater solidarity with local communities.
The Paydari Front is one of Iran's most hardline political factions and has been among the strongest opponents of negotiations with the United States. Its lawmakers have repeatedly criticized President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi over diplomacy with Washington.
Earlier this week, parliament removed two of the bloc's most outspoken critics of negotiations from senior positions on the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, reflecting growing tensions within Iran's conservative establishment over the handling of the conflict.

Southern anger
The petition has coincided with growing criticism on Persian-language social media over the burden borne by southern Iran, where much of the fighting has been concentrated.
In a video posted on Instagram, a comedian and influencer from southern Iran accused officials of downplaying attacks on the region. He said that when Tehran and other parts of the country came under attack, authorities described them as missile and drone strikes, but now that the south was bearing the brunt of the fighting, incoming rockets were being referred to simply as "projectiles."
"They've sanitized the language," he said. "It's as if a four- or five-year-old neighbor's child has thrown a stone at someone." He added: "You may not have the courage to call it what it is, but at least have some humanity. Don't treat southerners differently from everyone else."
Journalist Azadeh Mokhtari wrote on X that southern Iran was "the beating heart of Iran's economy," saying its ports were vital to imports, cargo handling and supplying much of the country.

Another X user argued that the Islamic Republic had turned large parts of the southern coastline into military zones and missile sites while residents continued to struggle with poverty despite the region's strategic importance and natural wealth.
A third wrote that Iranians should not pretend there was no war simply because the attacks were concentrated in the south. "Southern Iran is an inseparable part of this country," the post said. "Its pain is the pain of all Iran."
Unity message meets political divisions
The petition emerged as Iran's Press Supervisory Board instructed media outletsnot to highlight political or factional disputes, urging them instead to avoid content it said could harm national cohesion or amplify social divisions.
The guidance told outlets to avoid "highlighting political and factional differences," "reproducing internal disputes" and publishing material that could undermine public unity.
Iran ranks among the world's lowest countries for press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders, which says state repression continues to weigh heavily on independent journalism.

OVI +1 +1 +1 …

don't rule out "any" ground forces. Never rule out anything.
+1

I generally don't … however most Ret GENs said the probability of a land war is very low. As we see we should be able to do what we need to do with air assets or all types, etc.

Iran is much too large, and very rough terrain. We could do a raid on an island or coast. However, a major ground op/campaign would take a lot more troops, more time and most importantly the POTUS knows the US does not want to start taking heavy losses. If for no other reason … the USA does not what to go through another A'stan and Iraq. We know that is a no win situation …

IMO and others the POTUS wanted to strike up a cease fire to let fuel prices drop.

But as we see and I'm sure many in the Pentagon, etc. That the remaining IRGC are in charge. The want to go to paradise. They are r3ligious fanatics.

This time the US needs to continue this renewed air offensive. Continue to attriting Iran's assets. Until the hardliners are dead … This could take time … But again warfare is not like a fast-food place in the US. Some here need to understand that

Iran wants to continue to wage war, they don't care about their own …

Actually things look to be ramping up. Tankers to Israel. Some other things happening. I would not rule out Kharg Island and takeover of the oil.

Iran is hitting civilians and infrastructure in
Allies territory. Countries not involved. Maybe some will act, or not.

Keep an eye on the web outside of the normal MSM.

"Iran International" is pretty up to date on the happenings. I highly recommend it.

Iran international

The Trump administration plans to send dozens more aerial refueling planes to Israel as Trump considers a major expansion of US military operations against Iran, Axios reported.

Airpower alone doesn't seem to be moving the needle; it probably requires ground coordination.

And, if we're wondering "How many U.S. soldiers with rifles could realistically be sent into Iran tomorrow?", probably only a few thousand without bringing in reinforcements. That is nowhere near enough for a major invasion.

For perspective:

A serious invasion of Iran would likely require well over 100,000 troops, and some military analysts have estimated several hundred thousand because of Iran's size, terrain, and population.

Current deployments are orders of magnitude smaller.

Airpower alone doesn't seem to be moving the needle; it probably requires ground coordination.

We still don't know exactly what the Kurds are doing. They have had engagements with the IRGC, etc. Plus if any training of the "Free Persian" forces is going on. And we have no idea who is really on the ground from the IDF or even CIA/Spec. Ops, etc.

ISIS in Iraq was defeated with limited US assets on the ground along with arming and training locals with US CAS, etc. That is the technique and others the US used with the Montagnards, Hmong, etc. during the war in SE Asia.

Before that it was used during WWII in the P.I. and in many places in Europe. E.g. France, Italy, etc.

The time is not deemed right to unleash these forces. If they exist at all. As we have no proof of it either way … Which is the way these types of ops would best – clandestinely …

And, if we're wondering "How many U.S. soldiers with rifles could realistically be sent into Iran tomorrow?", probably only a few thousand without bringing in reinforcements. That is nowhere near enough for a major invasion.

What has been said many times by many Ret US Military Officers, etc. Iran is not Iraq. It is at least 4 times as large as Iraq. With some very rough terrain. The entire US Military could not effectively occupy/control such a huge place with a very large population. Albeit many are anti-islamist gov't, etc.

A serious invasion of Iran would likely require well over 100,000 troops, and some military analysts have estimated several hundred thousand because of Iran's size, terrain, and population.

Current deployments are orders of magnitude smaller.

Yes … there will be no march on Tehran, etc. Iran's remaining islamists have been severely attrited, as we know.

US and possibly IDF air assets still have more prep to do. And the negative comments from some in Congress, the media, etc. only embolden Iran's remaining islamists. This does not help the US cause to end these most heinous islamists …

Iran hardliners blamed as cost of US strikes mounts

Behrouz Turani
Iran International

Moderate voices in Iran are sharpening their criticism of hardline calls for continued confrontation with the United States, arguing that diplomacy has become a patriotic necessity as renewed war exacts mounting economic and human costs.
The debate has intensified since Iran targeted a vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last week, prompting a renewed US military campaign that has included days of strikes on ports, bridges, airports and military facilities across Iran's southern provinces.
Even as US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf have continued to defend diplomacy backed by military preparedness, the fighting has persisted and the prospect of a wider conflict has grown.
The criticism has been directed in part at ultrahardline figures such as Qom Seminary Chancellor Alireza Arafi, who has called for further war against the United States and an end to negotiations.
Two recent commentaries—one by former lawmaker and former National Security Committee chairman Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the other by political analyst Abdolrahman Fathollahi—reflect the growing push to hold hardliners accountable for the costs of confrontation.
While one focuses on political responsibility for failed diplomacy, the other highlights the burden borne by communities on Iran's southern frontier.
‘Defeating diplomacy'
Writing in the moderate daily Toseh Irani, Falahatpisheh accused hardline factions of using what he called a distorted interpretation of religion to obstruct diplomatic opportunities.
"I believe part of these two major wars against Iran was the result of this very definition of religious beliefs by extremists, who are now turning to distorting religion to defeat diplomacy," he wrote.
He argued that the same factions had repeatedly promised better outcomes while blocking agreements that could have reduced tensions.
"They are the exact same people who blocked two good agreements during the major periods of 2021 and 2022, claiming they would forge a better deal," he wrote. "But in practice, not only was no agreement achieved, but two major wars were imposed on Iran."
Falahatpisheh called for the prosecution of those he said had turned diplomatic opportunities into military conflict.
‘Patriotism from a safe distance'
A second commentary, published Thursday in Shargh, shifted the focus from political responsibility to the human cost of confrontation.
Under the title The Country's Future and the Triangle of Extremism, Costs, and Responsibility, Fathollahi warned about the toll of intensifying US airstrikes on Iran's southern coastal provinces.
He pointed to public campaigns calling for outspoken opponents of negotiations to be sent to the front lines, accusing them of practising what he described as "patriotism from a safe distance."
"One certainly cannot beat the drums of war from the safe margins of the capital behind podiums, while dumping the costs of those decisions onto the people living in the front lines," Fathollahi wrote, highlighting the plight of communities bearing the brunt of the fighting over the Strait of Hormuz.
The comments come after a week of US strikes on infrastructure across Iran's Persian Gulf provinces, where dozens have been killed or injured and many more affected by transport disruption, electricity blackouts and water shortages during the height of summer.
For Fathollahi, the question is no longer simply one of military strategy but whether Iran's leaders are willing to change course before the costs grow even higher.
"Rethinking certain political approaches and utilizing all expert and diplomatic capacities is not a choice," he concluded, "but a necessity to safeguard national interests and reduce the costs imposed on society."

Iran International

Tehran demands media limit strike damage coverage as US widens war
5 hours ago

confidential directive from Iran's Supreme National Security Council, obtained by Iran International on Friday, instructed media publishers and editors to limit reporting on damage to civilian infrastructure as the United States reportedly prepares to widen the Iran war.
…

It told media outlets covering attacks on civilian facilities and infrastructure to "refrain from publishing vital information," avoid creating "fear and alarm among the public," and withhold details about the extent of destruction or its impact on the delivery of public services.

The council said such information could be used "by the enemy to assess the effectiveness of its attacks." It instructed media outlets to obtain information through the most senior provincial official responsible for any institution or facility that had been hit.

The directive also ordered media outlets to describe disruptions to public services using phrases such as "the issue is under review and being resolved," rather than report the extent of the damage or provide specific details about its effect on services.


link

There are some key negotiation indicators that on the surface appear to be missing.

There are no State Department officials involved. Like it or not, Kushner and Vance do not have the kind of diplomatic negotiating experience re global statecraft as far as we know. The Abraham Accords were business agreements, ignoring the most critical point – the Palestinians. And where are the technical experts to assess the assets involved? The team is several sandwiches short of a picnic, it appears from the outside. As such, little chance that talks are leading anywhere.

Leaving us with more military actions. It feel like there is no way to know how this is going. US casualties? When are we rotating the overdue units home for overhaul and rest?

Iranian assets were said to have been wiped out weeks ago, yet we still have targets. Are there any results being disseminated by other than Trump and Caine? Any details? I assume some here are tracking some of this, or trying to. Maybe I am just looking in the wrong places. I don't follow tweets.

Why US strikes are moving deeper into southern Iran
Negar Mojtahedi
Iran International

The latest US strikes on southern Iran may offer the clearest indication yet of how Washington's campaign around the Strait of Hormuz is evolving from retaliation to the systematic degradation of Iran's military infrastructure.

American forces have been striking targets along Iran's Persian Gulf coast for almost a week.

Iranian media reported that eight people were killed as bridges, communications infrastructure and a maritime surveillance tower were hit across Hormozgan and Sistan-Baluchistan provinces.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, says the concentration of attacks along Iran's southern coastline—and increasingly farther inland—suggests the United States is moving beyond retaliation against individual strikes and targeting the infrastructure that allows Tehran to sustain and eventually rebuild the military capabilities underpinning its operations around the Strait of Hormuz.

"Up until very recently, the United States was primarily focused on doing retaliatory strikes exclusively along the coastline of Iran," Heinrichs told Eye for Iran. . "

‘Protecting maritime traffic'

The attacks came after President Donald Trump warned that bridges and power infrastructure could become targets if Tehran refused to return to negotiations.

Iranian military officials, meanwhile, said the conflict would "spread to new areas" if US operations continued.

"I suspect that the United States has had these targets on their list," she said. "President Trump has gone back to Admiral Cooper and said, ‘What else do we need to hit?'"

The likely focus, she added, was Iran's ability to replenish the military capabilities it uses around the Strait of Hormuz.

Among the sites struck was a maritime surveillance tower in Chabahar. Iran described it as a facility monitoring commercial shipping, while US Central Command said it formed part of an IRGC network used to track vessels transiting the strait and coordinate attacks against them.

CENTCOM said destroying the tower would directly reduce the Revolutionary Guards' ability to threaten maritime traffic.

The targeting of bridges in Hormozgan province also points to an expanding set of military objectives.

Heinrichs said Washington had sought to limit civilian harm, but argued that some dual-use infrastructure could become a legitimate military target if it substantially enabled IRGC operations.

"There are some targets that the United States could legitimately hit," she said. "They may create some harm, of course, to the civilian population, but they also primarily enable and facilitate the IRGC to repress their people and to continue their war effort."

A limited ground role?

The widening campaign has also fuelled speculation about whether Washington could eventually deploy ground forces inside Iran.

Heinrichs dismissed the prospect of a large-scale invasion, saying any deployment would more likely involve special operations forces tasked with securing or removing nuclear material rather than occupying territory.

"If President Trump were to go with any contingency that would entail some element of US ground forces, it would almost certainly be because the United States wants to remove any nuclear material that is still inside Iran," she said.

For now, however, Heinrichs believes the campaign remains centred on the Strait of Hormuz.

The initial phase significantly weakened Iran's military leadership and its capacity to project power beyond its borders, she said. Washington has now moved into what she described as "the battle over the Strait of Hormuz."

Taken together, the latest strikes point to a campaign that is evolving beyond retaliation. Rather than simply responding to Iranian attacks, Washington appears increasingly focused on preventing Tehran from regenerating the military infrastructure underpinning its operations around the Strait of Hormuz.

OVI +1 +++

Leaving us with more military actions.

Yes and that was always going to be the way it would work out. Many knew or believed Iran's islamists would not be honest, etc. with any talks. This has been true for decades …
But the POTUS had to try … but most likely knowing it was have go back to kinetic action again … and continuously
.

It feel like there is no way to know how this is going.

OPSEC during an ongoing operation … Like when LEO is in the middle of an investigation. Anything said in either case could taint the process…

And the enemy is always listening …

US casualties?

We know of the low numbers during the beginning of the conflict. Very unfortunate … it saddens me. May they RIP. The totals won't be known beyond those few KIAs until the conflict is over. IMO there has been and will be no more losses. No matter how many missiles and drone Iran fires as US troops.

Again, Sun Tzu, deception … E.g. remember the old movie Beau Gests. Lining up the dead FFL along the fort wall. Appearing to look thru the crenelations on the top of the catwalk. To deceive the enemy Arabs to the total number of FFL are still left to defend the fort.

Short answer – in this case … the enemy does not need to know US losses. They don't have the need to know. And at this time neither does anyone … not yet.

AFAIK and this seems to be accurate. As the US has released loss numbers before. There have been no more KIAs. But Iran has no need to know that …

When are we rotating the overdue units home for overhaul and rest?

Why would that information not be classified ? Again the enemy needs to know little as possible about friendly ops. The media asks similar "inappropriate" questions all the time. Again why would the enemy or anyone who does not need to know be told this. Troop movements are always classified at least as the start …

Remember WWII – "The Enemy may be listening" … "Loose lips sink ships" …

Iranian assets were said to have been wiped out weeks ago, yet we still have targets.

Yes approx. 10% of Iran's combat assets are probably still functionable. We see they fire a few missiles drones. And only occasionally. With fanatics like the WWII IJFs and now Iran's islamists will fight to the very last. Until some decide to surrender, and the rest are killed.

The lack of ordinances being fired by Iran is an indicator of Iran's supply situation.

Are there any results being disseminated by other than Trump and Caine? Any details?

Again only those who need to know get detailed information. As I explained before.

I assume some here are tracking some of this, or trying to.

Yes the US Military tracks it loses. The Leaders' down to Fire Tm level gives a daily report to his next higher. Daily and more. And that goes up the chain. Any leader/commander needs to know how many men and equipment he has to fight the battle.

Maybe I am just looking in the wrong places.

Maybe the information you want are some things you don't need to know ? Neither does the enemy …

Yes, all that is likely and I get it, a good reminder. I avoided the press and higher-ups during my time in the field, and learned how testify in court with as few words as possible.

The rotation of naval vessels for maintenance is well known, and detailed policy is available from the USN. As an operational necessity, it is fairly important and ultimately its lack could hurt performance.

There were some new casualties in Jordan reported yesterday, unfortunately.

As for the assessment from the Hudson Institute, the NYT has drawn a similar conclusion. So left and right agree, but few details.

Interesting part – we just took out a tower, "a facility monitoring commercial shipping, while US Central Command said it formed part of an IRGC network used to track vessels transiting the strait and coordinate attacks against them."

This should have been done on Day One. IMO

Tort you won't like the answer, but is accurate.

Also, a limited ground engagement may be in the offing. Not saying it is, one side is hinting and the other believes it is. An Island? Maybe?

Everyone involved in this debate has a profound bias, a political agenda, and a reason to manipulate the numbers.
During a highly politicized conflict under the Trump administration, information is weaponized by every faction. You cannot look at any public estimate without filtering it through the specific agenda of the person or group releasing it:

The Anti-War & Anti-Trump Bureaucracy Bias
* The Agenda: Many career military officials, intelligence analysts, and mainstream media outlets who oppose a wider war want to convince the public that a conflict with Iran is a catastrophic, unwinnable mistake. [1]
* How They Twist the Numbers: To support this narrative, they have a strong incentive to overestimateIran's strength. By painting Iran as an unbreakable military powerhouse with an endless supply of hidden weapons, they can argue that any further escalation by the Trump administration will trigger a regional disaster and a massive American quagmire. [1, 2]

The Pro-War & Pro-Administration Bias
* The Agenda: On the flip side, the administration and hawkish defense contractors want to prove that their aggressive "maximum pressure" strategy is working flawlessly.
* How They Twist the Numbers: They have a powerful incentive to underestimate Iran's remaining strength. By broadcasting that Iran is "90% depleted," they can claim total victory, justify the massive financial cost of the campaign, and make it look like Iran is on the absolute brink of collapse. [1]

The Defense Industry Bias
* The Agenda: Major defense corporations (like Raytheon or Lockheed Martin) want to secure massive, multi-billion-dollar manufacturing contracts. [1, 2]
* How They Twist the Numbers: They often amplify the "depleted U.S. stockpile" narrative. By telling Congress and the media that the U.S. is dangerously running out of Patriot interceptors and Tomahawk missiles, they guarantee that the government will hand them massive new contracts to restock the military for years to come. [1]

The Fog of War Reality
* When every single source—from a Pentagon general who dislikes the President, to a White House press secretary, to a news anchor—is using numbers as political weapons, the actual truth becomes impossible to verify.
* This total lack of reliable data is exactly why Arab nations are paralyzed. Because they cannot trust the overly optimistic numbers from the White House, nor the potentially exaggerated doomsday numbers from the media, they have to plan for the absolute worst-case scenario. In their eyes, guessing wrong means the destruction of their countries.
*

Rat leaving a sinking ship?
Cardboard cutout burn up?
Someone threw a bucket of water on him and he melted the rest of the way?

1 hour ago
Mojtaba Khamenei flees Iran as mystery over whereabouts grows: report

Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is no longer in Iran, according to an Israeli security source cited by Saudi news outlet Al-Hadath, The Times of Israel reported on Sunday.

The report comes as questions continue to swirl over Khamenei's whereabouts.
He has not appeared publicly since being named supreme leader following the Feb. 28 U.S.-Israeli strike that killed his father.
* The source also said Khamenei's messages were written by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG) chief Ahmad Vahidi or other members.

On Sunday, the Iranian leader referred to the U.S. as "the Great Satan" in his latest post on X and said the United States has learned it can no longer operate freely or dominate the Middle East.

"The Great Satan — the criminal U.S. — has now realized that the continuation of its trouble-free, domineering presence in the region is nothing but a naive fantasy," he said.

Well, somebody is still running their side of the war. Wherever he is, he is still alive, apparently. Time for some covert intel work!

I have no issue with that analysis 35th. The war could be going either way for all anyone knows. It's not a quagmire yet, not a big win either…time will tell.

The war could be going either way for all anyone knows. It's not a quagmire yet, not a big win either…time will tell.

Exactly the point since day one. We just don't know exactly what is happening and everybody reporting has an agenda.

I have found Iran International to be the most up to date and pretty accurate.

I posted this on my FB in the am. It has been 8 days of US surgical strikes on Iran's primarily military assets. It is clear they have been lying. Still want nukes, still want to control the Straits of Hormuz and still want to support islamic terrorists, etc. e.g. the Houthis, Hezbollah, what is left of Hamas, etc.

However, these moslem fanatics still continue to fire what missiles, drones, etc. they have left. Most of these are intercepted by US and other nations air defense system. They have fired at US locations in the region and some of the Arab nations in the area.

Unfortunately, a US base in Jordan was hit. Killing 2 US servicemembers, wounding 4 and one is MIA. The Pentagon has not given any more information at this time. Next of kin have to be notified, etc. The one MIA* may be still buried in the rubble of target they hit. If was too close to the point of impact of the missile(?). Sadly may have been blown to pieces, etc., etc. But the search is ongoing …

[Recent report remains were found most likely the MIA]

About 16 US service members have been killed in combat in the conflict. With about 430 WIAs and now 1 MIA. A sad but not unexpected fact of an armed conflict. IMO one of ours is too many. But it is a product of a shooting war. May they all RIP.

In reality those are very low losses for a conflict. Even going on in the short amount of time in this armed campaign. Only about 6 months. Which is generally considered a short time.

China and Russia are providing support to Iran. E.g. giving them intel on US locations, etc. Again this is not unexpected …

It is an easy intel evaluation. To see that the US has significantly attrited Iran's missile, drones, etc. stocks and military assets including the IRGC, islamists leaders, etc.

This islamist regime has to be removed. This is the only POTUS to go head-to-head with these molsem fanatics … This campaign has to continue until these islamists are taken off the board.

Which will change that region for the better as well as other places in the world. Islamic fanatics are threat to the West. They want to destroy Western Society. Some of these threats are in gov't at all levels. Including in Congress … We do not want to be communist nation and certainly don't want to be an islamic nation …

This is not a war of choice but a war of necessity …

The rotation of naval vessels for maintenance is well known, and detailed policy is available from the USN. As an operational necessity, it is fairly important and ultimately its lack could hurt performance.

Yes everything in the military has a maint. FM, schedule, check lists, etc. For US Army vehicles, etc. and I'm sure it is the same or similar in the rest of the US Military. sOP is before, during and after operations maint. The motor pools are always busy.

There were some new casualties in Jordan reported yesterday, unfortunately.

Yes I addressed that in my post above :

Unfortunately, a US base in Jordan was hit. Killing 2 US servicemembers, wounding 4 and one is MIA. The Pentagon has not given any more information at this time. Next of kin have to be notified, etc. The one MIA* may be still buried in the rubble of target they hit. If was too close to the point of impact of the missile(?). Sadly may have been blown to pieces, etc., etc. But the search is ongoing …

[Recent report remains were found most likely the MIA]

About 16 US service members have been killed in combat in the conflict. With about 430 WIAs and now 1 MIA. A sad but not unexpected fact of an armed conflict. IMO one of ours is too many. But it is a product of a shooting war. May they all RIP.

Interesting part – we just took out a tower, "a facility monitoring commercial shipping, while US Central Command said it formed part of an IRGC network used to track vessels transiting the strait and coordinate attacks against them."

You understand about target priorities. And you know what SEADS is … Yes ?

This should have been done on Day One. IMO

Again targeting priorities. Iran is a big place, and it was a target rich environment in the opening day of this conflict.

Again SEADS was one of the first target priorities on the Air Tasking Order. In the opening days. It should be obvious why. Along with C3I including Iran's leadership …

a limited ground engagement may be in the offing. Not saying it is, one side is hinting and the other believes it is. An Island? Maybe?

That may be true … but we won't know until it is over. As well as if there is any covert prep of the local anti-regime forces. From the IDF SF, CIA, US Spec Ops, etc. The US knows how to do this and did from WWII on. And even during the Cold War.

Everything is based on OPSEC, "Need to Know", etc. And some things we will never know … even from WWII AFAIK …

Well, somebody is still running their side of the war. Wherever he is, he is still alive, apparently.

The IRGC is running the show. There are no real moderates. They only want to make us think there are some. The US has been dealing with this 15th Century islamic blood cult for almost 50 years. Their MO, SOPs, etc. are all well known.

The IRGC had observed how the US did things in Iraq and A'stan. They have decentralized their commands. Along with caching' supplies, etc. E.g. covert partizans in scattered cells, etc. as with the Free French in WWII, the VC during the wars in Indochina, etc. But in Iran it is much more overt. And they run the county … But the tactics/methods are sound.

So yes the IRGC/Basji etc. will take a little time to clean up. But it is ongoing. And there is no real reason to be circumspect with these targets. Serve them and take them off the board. They deserve no quarter nor mercy … Their barbaric draconian record is their death warrant. And they wrote it for themselves.

Time for some covert intel work!

As I mentioned … it may very well be ongoing. But again we don't have the need to know nor does the enemy. Neither should many in Congress and the media – e.g. they are the 5th Column. There are Communists, islamists and antisemites in our gov't at many levels. Plus in universities, schools, in the streets, etc.

OVI +1

We are in a conflict with militant islamists overseas. Who get support indirectly or directly from within our own borders.

We know who they are …

It is interesting to me that in the US there is a portrayal of democratic socialist policies as communist. I have lived in, and visited many other, democratic socialist countries and I can tell you, they are very different to communist countries.
Many have thriving industrial bases, and the average population of those countries are significantly happier than the US population, with longer life expectancy. I am not saying that the US should become a democratic socialist country, but to dismiss all of their policies as communist without any consideration seems an extreme stance.

Martyn are you referring to Legions 5th column remark?

He is correct that we have all 3 types here.

Read the platform of the "Democratic Socialist". Abolish the Senate and Supreme Court? No borders? Confiscation of wealth and redistribution?
Just quick summary of just these 4.

Specific details on these positions include:
* Abolishing the Senate: The DSA's "Workers Deserve More" program proposes a new constitution that replaces the Senate and House with a single, democratically proportional legislative body. [1, 2]
*
* The Supreme Court: The platform seeks to fundamentally restructure or eliminate the independent Supreme Court, proposing a judiciary that is chosen by and entirely subordinate to Congress. [1, 2]
*
* Confiscation of Wealth: Rather than outright "confiscation," the DSA advocates for heavily progressive taxation on the wealthy, corporations, and large inheritances, alongside shifting key major industries and corporations to public or social ownership. [1, 2]
*
* Doing Away with Borders: The DSA platform opposes restrictive immigration controls. It calls for demilitarizing borders, granting immediate legal amnesty and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, and ending immigrant detention and deportations. [1, 2]
*

I just happened to have this candidate in my inbox this morning.

: RNC Research (@RNCResearch): "Former DSA Vice Chair Bhaskar Sunkara supports abolishing the Senate: "I would say that I'm against the Senate, I think the Senate is an undemocratic body…"" | XCancel


link

Just last week?

* * 103 House Democrats voted to cut all military and humanitarian aid to Israel. [1]
* The vote occurred on a proposed amendment to a State Department spending bill.

Yes, most of what they are advocating would be the destruction of the country put forth by our founders.

But really not a topic for this thread. 🙂

I was just making the point that there are a wide range of Democratic Socialist policies that are not Communist in any way.

Agree Martyn. And the First Ammendment makes these views entirely permissible in America. Communism is a system which does not work and has been used for cover by dictators for years. Just another faulty set of ideas, getting lumped in with socialism and fascism for political use. None of these more radical ideas of Dem Socialists will get any traction in the US.

"None of these more radical ideas of Dem Socialists will get any traction in the US."

But they have, as some have already been elected. They are backed by the members of the Squad and Bernie Sanders. They even campaign for them.

This stuff reads exactly like the same things promised in every failed Socialist/communist country taken over in the past… Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China..

So scared? Yes. They are getting elected in the big blue cities now. So yes, people are falling for it.

The next question: why are so many of them, first generation or current migrants from failed 3rd world countries, trying to bring the failed politics of their homelands here!?

If those countries politics were so great, that they should be brought here, why flee?

Questions that should and must be asked! Unfortunately they are not.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is the most prominent "new" democratic socialist to win a major executive office. Following his victory, a new wave of Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) candidates secured high-profile primary wins ahead of the November midterm elections. [1, 2]

Newly Elected Executive Leaders
* Zohran Mamdani: Elected Mayor of New York City.
* Katie Wilson: Elected Mayor of Seattle.
* Janeese Lewis George: Won the primary election for Mayor of Washington, D.C. [1, 2, 3]

Midterm Primary Victories
Several candidates won key Democratic primaries, placing them on track to expand the democratic socialist presence in Congress: [1, 2]

Melat Kiros: Won the primary for Colorado's 1st Congressional District.

Darializa Avila Chevalier: Unseated an incumbent in New York's 13th Congressional District.

Claire Valdez: Won the primary for New York's 7th Congressional District. [1, 2]

Local and State Additions

Kelsea Bond: Elected as the first DSA member on the Atlanta City Council.

Gabriel Sanchez: Serves as the first Democratic Socialist in the Georgia General Assembly. [1]

The official political agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America is defined by their "Workers Deserve More" platform. It divides its core demands into three primary pillars aimed at shifting systemic power to the working class. [1, 2, 3]

1. Thriving Working-Class Communities
* Freedom to Flourish: Implementing a 32-hour work week with no reduction in pay, establishing a living minimum wage, and providing tuition-free public education from pre-K through college alongside total student debt cancellation. [1, 2]
* Healthcare for All: Guaranteeing free, universal single-payer healthcare (Medicare for All), including unrestricted access to reproductive and gender-affirming care, while making all medical training entirely public and free. [1, 2]
* Housing for All: Constructing publicly owned social housing, instituting universal rent control, heavily regulating investment real estate, and guaranteeing public legal counsel for all tenants. [1, 2]
* Finish Reconstruction: Enacting reparations for slavery and colonialism, rigorously enforcing anti-discrimination protections, honoring indigenous tribal treaties, and investing public funds directly into minority communities. [1]
* Ecosocialist Green New Deal: Executing a massive public transition to 100% renewable energy through high-wage, unionized public sector jobs. [1, 2]

2. Working-Class Democracy
* Abolishing the Senate and Presidency: Eliminating the U.S. Senate and the executive presidency in favor of a unicameral, proportional parliamentary legislature. [, 2]
* Eliminating the Electoral College: Replacing the current presidential voting structure with a national popular vote and restructuring ballot access to foster a multi-party democracy. [1]
* Expanding Voting Rights: Extending full, unimpeded voting rights to all noncitizens and individuals with criminal convictions. [1]
* Ending Mass Incarceration: Defunding police forces, ending qualified immunity, and dismantling the corporate prison complex. [1, 2, 3, 4]

3. Working-Class Foreign Policy
* Abolishing ICE: Dismantling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, halting all deportations, and pardoning undocumented immigrants.
* Defunding the Military: Severely cutting spending to the Department of Defense, closing international military bases, and rejecting foreign military interventions.
* Anti-Imperialist Solidarity: Championing pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist foreign policy directives while backing international labor movements. [1, 2, 3, 5]
The full text and organizational strategies for these items are actively hosted on the DSA Program Portal. [1]

Please read, it's their site after all. 😉

Subject: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -


dsausa.org

"Workers Deserve More" ?? Karl is that you?

Subject: DSA Program – Workers Deserve More!


program.dsausa.org

OVI +1

Yes there are so called democratic socialists who claim they are not communists … this is classic Commie disinformation. Even Bill Mahr has said the same. To quote – "Don't tell me I'm not seeing what I am seeing." He has been pretty accurate with his observations about this region, the war, etc. He is one of the few in the media who seem to be "an honest broker" …

When it comes to this type of obfuscation … I.e. – They can put lipstick on a pig … but it is still a pig … E.g. Reread "1984" and "Animal Farm" …

Waaay OT …

Unfortunately, another US troop was killed in Iraq this weekend. While trying to disarm one of Iran's drones that crashed, etc. that hit the ground and did not detonate. When trying to do a controlled detonation. Used to call it/say "to blow it in place."

Sadly it happens when working with UXO. Happened at least one or two occasions when I was serving.

GEN Ret. W. Clarke interviewed this am said similar to what I and others [of much higher rank than I] have been saying. To paraphrase – This is going to take time and be patient. He directly mentioned the fact how we took out ISIS in Iraq. Using our firepower with our Spec Ops and locals armed trained and controlled by the US. They were the vast majority of "boots on the ground". Supported by the US …

Yes that is how it worked and did work as again I mentioned here many, many times. I was trained by and served with Officers and NCOs who did this type of op in SE Asia. E.g. the Montagnards, Hmong, etc. Against the VC and NVA.

Did similar in WWII in many places in Europe and the PI, etc. …

Again this type of covert ops is probably going on now in Iran. By the IDF, CIA US Spec Ops. However, I have no proof … but that is how it works. This is very much covert, classified, etc. …

However, something we saw with the VC and NVA do. They would generally only attack when they saw the situation and terrain was just right. That gave them a clear advantage. Which is just makes/is good military sense. When they did otherwise, they took heavy losses, in many cases. E.g. Tet '68 …

That is what is most likely going on in Iran. The anti-islamist "Free Persian" forces plus other locals, e.g. Kurds, Baluch[another moslem tribe in the region], etc. Working with again, the IDF and US to prep for an attack on the depleted IRGC/Basji, etc.

This is not the time to attack … yet. The IRGC/Basji, need to suffer further attrition, etc.

And again this will take time. Be patient … As GEN Ret. W. Clarke has just said …

Anyone here that have a better CV than Clarke on this topic. Because you read books and played a war game. You may very well be not only biased but delusional …

Case in point. Just off the wires, Politico

Elizabeth Warren endorses Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan Senate race

The Democratic Senate candidate had already been endorsed by other leading progressives.
Emilio Perez Ibarguen
EMILIO PEREZ IBARGUEN
07/20/2026, 9:56AM ET

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) endorsed Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary on Monday morning, adding another big name to the former public health official's collection of coveted progressive backers.

El-Sayed, who is running against Rep. Haley Stevens to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, has already been endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — both of whom appeared alongside him at a rally in Michigan on Sunday.

<\q>

Legion +1

Sadly it looks like 4 in total. 🫡

I noticed the Iranians are now starting to acknowledge more casualties on their end. That may mean they are getting more significant and cannot be hidden from the public.

I still think something is coming. Bigger than air strikes.

Something very specific.

I do look to see Israel involved soon. Potentially Saudi Arabia and or their allies against the Houthis.

I always look to see who takes the forefront, Vance or Rubio. Vance is disappearing again… normally a sign of war

I have tried to say here that the Dem Socialist platform is supported to varying degrees by a wide variety of its members. It is not an ironclad document for all of them. Apparently I cannot make a comparison to the other side here, thinking back on Project 25, among other things. IMO opinion there is now a centrist majority not supporting any dogmatic manifesto in particular, looking to right the ship.

Saudi Arabia led the Yemen intervention for years, conducted extensive bombing, backed local forces, and still failed to eliminate or decisively subordinate the Houthis. The Houthis survived, improved their missile and drone capability, and eventually forced Riyadh toward de-escalation. The present Houthi blockade threat and renewed missile launches show the same basic problem remains.

I would be surprised if Israel gets involved again, I suspect that although they have their hands full with the US and the Gulf allies/Jordan, Israel may worry that their concentrated cities will get hit hard like Jordan. In any case, if indeed the US is asking them to forbear against Iran, it's as much to to preserve Israel from bombardment as it is for the US to control escalation.

The IDF has Spec Ops/intel operatives, etc. on the ground in Iran. As have for a very long time. This is important in this conflict.

The IDF may be busy with cleansing Hezbollah. But this time with the involvement from Lebanon's real gov't and soldiers. Along with keeping Hamas under control which has to remain a priority.

Hopefully some of the Gulf allies will jump on board to remove Iran's islamists threat in their own backyards.

As I type this the US is conducting more strikes on Iran. Continuing the attrition. And again we don't know what is going on in the covert ops part of this campaign.

Again, this will take time. We have their nuke threat under control. The conflict has now evolved to keeping the strait free of Iran's interdiction.

Of course, Iran's regime does not care about any human lives. While the US, the West does. That will always be a consideration.

This is a very complex multilevel conflict. Which affects many in the world. This is one reason why none of the former POTUSs even would attempt it. And they wanted to get reelected. That is the X-Factor in this equation …

The other side:

Iran economists say war is turning malaise into crisis

Behrouz Turani
Iran International
2 hours ago

Iran's leading economists warned Monday that renewed conflict with the United States risks pushing the country's long-festering economic problems into a more dangerous phase, arguing that inflation is becoming increasingly difficult to contain.
The unusually candid warnings came at a two-day economic conference in Tehran that brought together senior economists, policymakers and business leaders after being postponed three times because of regional instability and wartime conditions.
Speakers said the latest escalation with Washington had transformed discussions from long-term reform into managing an economy under renewed military pressure.
Former presidential adviser Masoud Nili delivered one of the starkest assessments, warning that Iran's economy was moving from a chronic but manageable malaise into an active crisis.
Years of structural mismanagement, he said, were now visibly breaking open, while inflation had entered a "more slippery phase" in which subsidies and social safety nets were no longer sufficient to protect household welfare.
Media coverage reflected the divide between government officials seeking to reassure the public and independent economists warning that structural weaknesses were becoming harder to ignore.
Economic daily Donya-ye-Eghtesad listed chronic inflation, weak and unstable growth, persistent budget deficits, foreign-exchange volatility, dual exchange rates, pension-fund insolvency, foreign-policy pressures and rising geopolitical risks among the country's most urgent challenges.
Economist Mehrdad Sepahvand, one of the conference organizers, said the event had been delayed three times because of the regional crisis.
Investment gap
Former Central Bank Governor Hossein Abdoh Tabrizi argued that banking reform was essential, saying financial institutions must become "efficient allocators of capital rather than money-printing engines."
Although public confidence in the banking system had held up during recent regional conflict, he said, deeper reforms were needed to channel savings into productive investment.
Economist Mohammad-Mehdi Behkish said rebuilding damaged infrastructure, restoring economic growth and modernizing industry would require about $500 USD billion in investment.
Domestic resources alone were nowhere near sufficient, he argued, making greater foreign engagement and integration into the global economy indispensable.
Alireza Bakhtiari, director of the Donya-ye-Eghtesad Media Group, said policymakers remained trapped between what he described as a "survival paradigm" and a "growth paradigm," arguing that many of Iran's domestic economic constraints could not be resolved without major foreign-policy decisions.
Government response
Government-linked outlets focused instead on Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati, who acknowledged the severity of the economic situation while urging against panic.
Hemmati cited Iranian and international data showing a 47 percent decline in real per-capita income, saying the purchasing power of the average Iranian had fallen to levels last seen in the late 1990s.
Calling for "realism without doom-mongering," he argued that neither denial nor exaggeration would improve the economy.
"Price stability alone doesn't create goods," he said. "Only investment and productivity can sustainably restore Iranians' purchasing power."
Inflation pressures
Independent economists painted an even darker picture.
Hossein Tavakolian warned that inflation was entering a more dangerous phase.
Monthly inflation, once around 3 percent and equivalent to roughly 40 percent annually, was now periodically reaching 10 percent, he said, with nearly every major consumer category entering what he described as "red zones."
Academic economist Teymour Rahmani argued that inflation in Iran was fundamentally a political and fiscal problem rather than simply a monetary one.
Although direct government borrowing from the central bank had been curtailed, he said, fiscal pressures had merely shifted onto commercial banks, postponing rather than solving the country's inflation problem.

<\q>

An opinion on Israel, not from me.

Iran has avoided striking Israel during the most recent 10 days of combat as it fears the response of the Israeli Defense Forces. That is deterrence restored. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is afraid to strike the Jewish State. Now it must be made afraid to shoot at Americans or at its Arab neighbors or international shipping.

<\q>

A little more as to why isn't and why Iran is not hitting Israel

Israel has refrained from joining the renewed U.S.-led conflict against Iran to maintain Washington's control over the engagement's scope and timing. By remaining on the sidelines, Israel is allowing the U.S. military to handle the current campaign, which is largely focused on the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf states rather than Israel itself. [1, 2]
Key factors influencing this decision include:
* U.S. Strategy: The U.S. has not asked Israel to enter the current campaign and prefers to manage the escalations and negotiations independently. [1]
*
* Regional Dynamics: Following the collapse of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, Iran has directed its attacks heavily at U.S. bases in the region, commercial shipping, and Gulf states. Israel has not been a direct target in this recent surge of fighting. [1, 2]

Fear of Full-Force Israeli Deterrence
During the opening rounds of the conflict (such as Operation Epic Fury), Israel demonstrated catastrophic capabilities against Iranian infrastructure and leadership. Israel has issued severe warnings that any new missile barrages will be met with "full force". Knowing that Israel's air defense networks are highly intact and backed by devastating offensive capabilities, Iran is reluctant to bring a highly capable adversary back into the kinetic theater.

<\q>

There are those who say that these renewed attacks on Iran are unlikely to succeed in swaying Iran.
link
Oh no! The Commie Washington Post!

And the Pentagon is running out of money.
And we are running out of missiles.
And China is happily supplying targeting information.
And China is smiling in a sinister Fu-Manchu way as we degrade our ability to defend Taiwan.

Agree,

Much more of this continual bombing and we would not be able to defend Taiwan. Then, given we need materials from China to make new weapons, I doubt China would sell us more materials if they were attacking Taiwan. Long-term this war was not well thought out.

Let's be honest, if China attacked Taiwan with Trump as President.

1) He defends it: most of the MSM, The Democrats and most who habitually oppose him and everything he does…. Would of course… oppose him doing so.

2) He does not defend it: most of the MSM, The Democrats and most who habitually oppose him and everything he does…. Would of course… oppose him NOT doing so.

You, me, all of us know that is the case. 😂

You are correct John, I saw that article earlier, read it and disregarded anything they said. Why? I'll let AI answer for me.

Look what their readers did when they did not endorse Kamala. 😉😱

"readers canceled over 200,000 digital subscriptions in just a few days."

Yes the post knows who butters their noodles. 😉

The Washington Post is widely perceived by critics and media analysts as habitually critical of Donald Trump, frequently scrutinizing his rhetoric, policies, and behavior. While the paper maintains it is adhering to fact-based, adversarial journalism, its stance has been a subject of intense debate, political tension, and internal shifts.

<\q>

I agree that Israel is staying on the sidelines at the request of the US for many of the reasons outlined.
However, I question whether Israel has the offensive or defensive missile stocks to maintain a prolonged war with Iran. There have been a number of reports of low stocks and the US is not currently in a position to replace them due to its own needs.

Martyn

I am not trying to be argumentative, but it seems that many on TMP and the media, are more then willing to believe anything negative related to our military, but not the same about our adversaries.

IE. they are happy to accept anything said about our "low stockpiles". But cannot accept that Iran's situation is as bad, or in worse straits.

The McClellan Syndrome: He always believed he was outnumbered.

I'll just say, we are still bombing.

Israel, from all I read in their news services, wants back in.

Hezbollah has become somewhat quiet. Could it be that their lifeline has been cut? That Iran's missile and drone situation is more dire than some may think?

We know Hamas has been a non entity. Syrian militias fairly quiet. The Houthis are threatening, but how much do they really have and how much punishment are they willing to take? That punishment already started.

Just Hezbollah:

evidence strongly indicates that Hezbollah's weapons supplies are drying up and their vital supply lines have been severely strangled. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The group is facing an unprecedented logistical crisis due to a combination of intense military pressure, international blockades, and a shifting geopolitical landscape in neighboring countries. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

1. The Severing of the Tehran-Damascus Corridor
Historically, the vast majority of Hezbollah's heavy weaponry was smuggled from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, and into Lebanon. This corridor has effectively collapsed. Following the collapse of the Assad regime, the new Syrian government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa treats Hezbollah as a hostile actor rather than an ally. Syria has actively shut down its border crossings with Lebanon, leading to a collapse in the transfer of munitions.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. Active Interceptions by Neighboring Countries
Rather than looking the other way, regional borders are being policed aggressively:
* The Syrian Border: Syrian customs and security forces have begun actively intercepting remaining smuggling attempts. Syrian authorities seized an advanced shipment of long-range missiles, rockets, and drones at the Iraqi border, and intercepted over 200 grenades hidden in a vehicle heading toward Lebanon. [1, 2, 3, 4]
* The Iraqi Shift: Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi announced a mandate putting all weapons strictly under the authority of the Iraqi state, cracking down on the rogue militias that previously facilitated transit to Hezbollah. [1]

3. Total U.S. and Israeli Interdiction
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that its extensive regional military campaigns have successfully "cut off" Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis from Iranian arms supplies. Concurrently, continuous Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) airstrikes have targeted underground arms caches inside Lebanon and obliterated the physical crossings along the Syrian-Lebanese border. [1, 2, 3, 4]

4. Shifting to Low-End, Local Munitions
The depletion of their high-end arsenal is visible on the battlefield. Military analysts note a sharp decline in Hezbollah's overall military activity. Because they can no longer easily replenish guided anti-tank missiles, advanced drones, or long-range ballistic missiles, they have been forced to rely almost entirely on small, locally manufactured FPV (first-person view) drones and unguided Katyusha rockets

<\q>

The majority of the media. All it seems of the Democrats, with the exception of Fetterman and those who strongly hate the President, are dying for a debacle and failure. No matter the cost. So yes, I seriously question any of their stories.

How can I not, when stories like this appear:

The Allegation: Reports and industry blogs (like Live and Let's Fly) circulated a claim that United was authorizing agents to move travelers booked into the newly renamed President Donald J. Trump International Airport (formerly Palm Beach International, PBI / DJT) to alternative airports like Miami (MIA) or Fort Lauderdale (FLL) for free.

<\q>

Now united denies it. But was it true, or did anti Trump media make it up? Either way, it is a sad example of the times.

Not trying to be argumentative either.

I have no doubt that Iran stock piles are low. But that is not what I was concentrating on.

My primary wargaming interests are in China operations and Ukraine/NATO/Russia operations. That is why I am particularly interested in the stockpile situation in both defensive and offensive missiles.

I believe that the availability of missile replacements are affecting policy decisions in the US, NATO countries and middle-east countries.
I also think that it may play out in South Korea and Japan policy decisions in the next year or two.

So my comments are not to create any sort of argument, but just to propose a discussion point and present one factor that is going into decision making. They really are politic neutral comments – whether others believe that or not. For various personal reasons, I really do try and stay away from political commentary – acknowledging that my personal views do have some influence on some of my statements.

My view is Europe should be able to handle the Ukraine conflict. I know we are still shipping weapons there.

China and Taiwan.

This may upset many. Even with all our weapons (say no Iran and only those already lost in the Ukraine), I don't believe the U.S. can win a war in the Chinese home waters.

Both countries would be economically damaged, probably with worldwide economic catastrophe that would make the great depression look like a hiccup.
Both navy's and Air Force's heavily degraded.

Our few allies in the region would lose their navies and Air Force's quickly.

More than likely a world war.

Almost all military simulators show this as probable. Especially now with drones.

The only way China comes out a winner, is if we let them have the island intact.

There are taiwanese who would be willing to hand it over. So am really unsure of their willingness to resist.

Best scenario for the U.S. is the "Broken Nest". Make it worthless, other than China having the land. Then make it so they cannot easily supply it.

We keep most of our navy and Air Force and can hinder any advances. They are forced out of home range.

But world economy still blows up and requires us to destroy the taiwanese industry, specifically the chip industry.

The is no true winning scenario for either the U.S. or China. Baring of course the taiwanese following the lead of Hong Kong.

For me Iran is the enemy, for many reasons dating back to 1979.

Oil is still king and China needs it to function.

As I said, even the "broken nest" is darn near catastrophic. Especially for those closest.

1. Immediate GDP Collapse [1]
* Massive Economic Contraction: A war over Taiwan involving the destruction of its tech infrastructure would contract China's GDP by an estimated 16.7% to nearly 25% within the first year. This translates to a direct domestic loss of roughly $2.8 USD trillion. [1, 2, 3]
* Manufacturing Freeze: China is the "factory of the world," but its manufacturing lines rely entirely on Taiwanese semiconductors to build smartphones, electric vehicles, medical devices, and home appliances. Without these "golden screw" components, China's massive export economy would instantly stall. [1]

2. Crippling the Domestic Tech and AI Sectors
* Losing Advanced AI Infrastructure: China is aggressively pursuing leadership in Artificial Intelligence. However, training its AI models relies heavily on advanced chips fabricated primarily by TSMC. Losing this supply line would paralyze China's tech giants (like Huawei, Tencent, and Alibaba) and freeze its algorithmic advancements. [1, 2, 3, 4]
* Exposure of Domestic Vulnerabilities: Despite pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into its "Big Fund" and "Made in China" initiatives, China still falls short of its self-sufficiency goals. Its domestic fabs (like SMIC) remain generations behind TSMC and cannot produce advanced sub-7nm chips at the volume China requires. [1, 2, 3, 4]

3. Absolute Diplomatic and Trade Isolation
* Draconian Western Sanctions: The deliberate destruction of an industry that enables $10 USD trillion of global GDP would trigger coordinated, severe economic sanctions from the US, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. [1, 2, 3]
* Seizure of Foreign Reserves: Western nations would likely freeze China's trillions of dollars in foreign currency reserves and sovereign bonds held abroad. China would be abruptly cut off from the SWIFT international banking network, crippling its ability to conduct external trade. [1]

4. Severe Internal Social Instability
* Mass Unemployment: With factories unable to source chips and ports choked off by a wartime blockade, tens of millions of Chinese manufacturing and tech workers would lose their jobs. [1]
* The "Social Contract" Broken: For decades, the Chinese public has largely accepted the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party in exchange for consistent economic growth and rising living standards. A sudden, violent regression into economic depression, rationing, and isolation would severely test the party's domestic stability.
Ultimately, by forcing the issue and allowing the chip industry to be destroyed, China would be choosing a "pyrrhic victory"—gaining the physical island of Taiwan but plunging itself into a deep, prolonged economic dark age

Yes, these regional nations have infinitely more to lose than the United States, as a Chinese victory over Taiwan would fundamentally threaten their direct physical, economic, and sovereign survival.While a war would severely damage the U.S. economy, for regional allies, the consequences would be an existential catastrophe [1, 2].
The stakes are much higher for America's allies due to several immediate vulnerabilities:

1. Japan's Literal Lifeline is Threatened
Japan imports over 90% of its energy and the vast majority of its food via the shipping lanes that run directly through the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
* The Existential Threat: If China controls Taiwan, Beijing gains a legal and military chokehold over Japan's maritime supply lines.
* The Island Chain Collapse: Taiwan sits at the center of the First Island Chain. Its fall would place Chinese military bases just 70 miles from Japan's southernmost populated islands (like Yonaguni), putting Japanese territory directly on the front lines of potential future Chinese aggression.

2. Taiwan Faces Total Absorption
For Taiwan, the loss of a war does not just mean a change in government; it means the end of its democratic society, its sovereignty, and its way of life. Taiwanese citizens would face forced integration, political re-education, and the complete dismantling of their economic independence.

3. The Philippines Becomes Encircled
The northernmost islands of the Philippines are located less than 200 miles south of Taiwan.
* The Security Threat: If Beijing positions its military assets on Taiwan's south coast, the Philippines would be completely cut off from northern allied reinforcements.
* The Territorial Threat: China already aggressively contests Philippine islands in the South China Sea; a victorious China would have unhindered maritime power to seize those disputed territories permanently.

4. Australia Loses Its Security Buffer
While physically further away, Australia relies entirely on a free and open Indo-Pacific for its trade-based economy. If the U.S. is pushed out of East Asia, Australia is left geographically isolated in a region dominated entirely by an assertive, authoritarian superpower with a blue-water navy.

The Paradox: Why Don't They Spend More?
Given that they have everything to lose, it seems illogical that these countries do not spend 5% or 10% of their GDP on defense. This paradox exists because of two main factors:
* The "U.S. Trap": For decades, these nations assumed the U.S. military would always be there to save them. This created a cycle of dependency where they prioritized domestic social spending over massive military hardware.
* Political Hurdles: Japan has strict pacifist constitutional limits left over from World War II, making rapid military expansion highly controversial among its voters. The Philippines, as a developing nation, simply lacks the massive financial capital to build a high-tech navy overnight, regardless of its percentage goals.
The shift we are seeing now—with Japan doubling its budget and Taiwan pushing past 3%—is a direct result of these countries finally realizing that they can no longer take American protection for granted.

<\q>