Military Strikes on Iran Imminent

[baltimorened]

Sure they will, needing us less, reducing our influence, giving us less leverage in any future negotiations, and having them get friendlier with our rival. Two sides to the coin.

you're right there are two sides to the coin. NATO nations, in general, have been riding on our largess for decades. The shame of it has been that our leaders have allowed it...we talk big about the need for allies to "belly up" and then do nothing. In spite of the US backlash, Trump really has been the president to say "no more" and demand that allies who made commitments actually fulfill those commitments.

But there is a point in discussions when saying the same thing - in a less than civil manner - does more harm than good.

As I posted once before, NATO is just like every organization - it has it's good points and bad points. But it has served the world well for a very long time, and we should work to make it work

 

[UrHuckleberry]

You might be correct but I don't like the idea of having to pay people to be our friends.

I hear you, but just a complex world, and we're paying for soft diplomacy and incredible influence through the world. On top of just general peace.

Not saying everything we were doing was correct, that there isn't room for some course correction in any number of spheres, etc. But I think the overall strategy prior to Trump 47 was significantly better than the current admin.

 

[Chumpsky]

Much of Europe still buys oil and gas from Russia. They've scaled back but they haven't stopped. The last I read they were spending $1.35 billion euros per month buying Russian energy.

I didn't mean to imply they weren't. I just meant they'll have to depend on them much more than they currently do.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

you're right there are two sides to the coin. NATO nations, in general, have been riding on our largess for decades. The shame of it has been that our leaders have allowed it...we talk big about the need for allies to "belly up" and then do nothing. In spite of the US backlash, Trump really has been the president to say "no more" and demand that allies who made commitments actually fulfill those commitments.

But there is a point in discussions when saying the same thing - in a less than civil manner - does more harm than good.

As I posted once before, NATO is just like every organization - it has it's good points and bad points. But it has served the world well for a very long time, and we should work to make it work

Sure. But that also keeps us as absolutely needed. As the sole superpower in the truly free world. Has prevented it really mattering who wins most elections over there, as they'd have too far to go to militarize to a point where they could threaten really anyone.

Definitely agree with your second and third sections.

 

[bdgan]

I hear you, but just a complex world, and we're paying for soft diplomacy and incredible influence through the world. On top of just general peace.

Not saying everything we were doing was correct, that there isn't room for some course correction in any number of spheres, etc. But I think the overall strategy prior to Trump 47 was significantly better than the current admin.

I'm not so sure about your last sentence. IMO the USA has been the world's policeman ever since WWII and the Marshall Plan. Of course that gave us substantial influence but at a steep price. We're now $38 trillion in debt and we're adding $2 trillion per year to that number. Think about it, we spend $7 trillion and tax $5 trillion. How long can that continue?

IMO the problem is that our allies have become accustomed to American generosity and they aren't happy when we threaten to take it away. I don't like Trump's public rhetoric but I do think it's long past due for the U,.S. to take a hard stand.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I'm not so sure about your last sentence. IMO the USA has been the world's policeman ever since WWII and the Marshall Plan. Of course that gave us substantial influence but at a steep price. We're now $38 trillion in debt and we're adding $2 trillion per year to that number. Think about it, we spend $7 trillion and tax $5 trillion. How long can that continue?

IMO the problem is that our allies have become accustomed to American generosity and they aren't happy when we threaten to take it away. I don't like Trump's public rhetoric but I do think it's long past due for the U,.S. to take a hard stand.

Sort of the potential course correction I am open to, but pissing off our allies, starting trade wars around the globe, and forcing our allies into our rivals economic arms just isn't the way to me. I don't believe our allies feel they can trust our current admin, with intelligence or in actions.

 

[baltimorened]

Sort of the potential course correction I am open to, but pissing off our allies, starting trade wars around the globe, and forcing our allies into our rivals economic arms just isn't the way to me. I don't believe our allies feel they can trust our current admin, with intelligence or in actions.

every business dealing should have a basis of consistency. Right now, if I was in Europe, any country, I'd have a hard time planning around the lack of consistency on trade and tariffs. But, and I may be wrong (but it happens so frequently that maybe I'm not) I think this inconsistency is part of his normal way of doing business. Something like "the less they know what I'm doing, better for me".

 

[bdgan]

Sort of the potential course correction I am open to, but pissing off our allies, starting trade wars around the globe, and forcing our allies into our rivals economic arms just isn't the way to me. I don't believe our allies feel they can trust our current admin, with intelligence or in actions.

I understand your opinion. Here's some clarity about my opinion:

• I don't think there's any way to stop the largesse without angering our "allies" but I do agree that Trump pushes things too far and magnifies the problem with insulting rhetoric.
• Trump will only be president for 2.7 years. The USA remains the world's biggest economic power. Our "allies" will likely make some short term moves but I'm confident that they'll want to maintain a strong relationship withe the USA.

During my business career we had some underperforming companies and drastic change was required to get them back on track. We brought in people to make changes that both management and rank and file employees despised. After a year or so we had to get rid of the change agents and replace them with new management because the change agents were despised. Employees preferred the new management because they weren't the ones who forced the unpopular changes. But after a year or so company performance improved and employees became more supportive (especially as layoffs slowed and profit sharing increased).

P.S. This isn't me supporting the war. I still have reservations but I also understand that these things are complicated. "Don't" and releasing frozen money sure didn't help. I'm just hoping for the best.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I understand your opinion. Here's some clarity about my opinion:

• I don't think there's any way to stop the largesse without angering our "allies" but I do agree that Trump pushes things too far and magnifies the problem with insulting rhetoric.
• Trump will only be president for 2.7 years. The USA remains the world's biggest economic power. Our "allies" will likely make some short term moves but I'm confident that they'll want to maintain a strong relationship withe the USA.

During my business career we had some underperforming companies and drastic change was required to get them back on track. We brought in people to make changes that both management and rank and file employees despised. After a year or so we had to get rid of the change agents and replace them with new management because the change agents were despised. Employees preferred the new management because they weren't the ones who forced the unpopular changes. But after a year or so company performance improved and employees became more supportive (especially as layoffs slowed and profit sharing increased).

P.S. This isn't me supporting the war. I still have reservations but I also understand that these things are complicated. "Don't" and releasing frozen money sure didn't help. I'm just hoping for the best.

I also get your point of view. My only thing is I think you can do a lot of the things you are wanting, while doing it as an adult, making it part of a consistent strategy you are communicating, and working to keep diplomacy strong through it. The complete unpredictability, coupled with the NATO moves and tariffs is just a disaster IMO.

 

[Chumpsky]

U.S. intel chiefs lying through their teeth on the TV right now.

 

[bdgan]

I also get your point of view. My only thing is I think you can do a lot of the things you are wanting, while doing it as an adult, making it part of a consistent strategy you are communicating, and working to keep diplomacy strong through it. The complete unpredictability, coupled with the NATO moves and tariffs is just a disaster IMO.

We mostly agree on that but I think some things require an aggressive approach. Nobody wants to give up a good thing and they're going to go kicking and screaming before they do so voluntarily. In that sense diplomacy can only go so far. But being an arse and acting impulsively instead of consistently is totally unnecessary and counterproductive.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

We mostly agree on that but I think some things require an aggressive approach. Nobody wants to give up a good thing and they're going to go kicking and screaming before they do so voluntarily. In that sense diplomacy can only go so far. But being an arse and acting impulsively instead of consistently is totally unnecessary and counterproductive.

While I may disagree on how aggressive an approach was needed, if there was a clear and consistent message and strategy, and someone who understood more nuance sold me on the path forward, I could see myself being convinced. Certainly think I'm open to being convinced.

 

[bdgan]

While I may disagree on how aggressive an approach was needed, if there was a clear and consistent message and strategy, and someone who understood more nuance sold me on the path forward, I could see myself being convinced. Certainly think I'm open to being convinced.

I'm not trying to convince people of anything other than to think objectively rather than through political blinders.. We might have different points of view but I think we're both trying to do that.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I'm not trying to convince people of anything other than to think objectively rather than through political blinders.. We might have different points of view but I think we're both trying to do that.

Agreed. And I meant more the people in power than you personally.

There are things I am passionate about, and would be hard to move off my position (social media rage algorithms being my main one), but this isn't one. So if Trump or even just his administration officials came with a mature path forward, their reasoning, and how we would get there. And then executed that vision, I would be open. I haven't hated every single thing done just because it was done by Trump or the admin. But strategic long term thinking has to me, been seemingly absent. Everything seems to be a reaction or singular moment type decision. But now I'm rambling.

 

[Chumpsky]

 

[JohnHughsPartner]

 

[dpic73]

Just wow. It will take decades for the world to trust the United States again.

UK security adviser ‘attended’ US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach

Exclusive: Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war, sources say

www.theguardian.com

 

[dpic73]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if infrastructure like this gets blown up, as of this moment it will take at least a decade to recover from this war - and the truth is that the world's energy picture is probably changed forever. This single facility produced roughly 20% of global LNG supply (https://aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/18/qatar-says-iran-missile-attack-sparks-fire-causes-damage-at-gas-facility

and, as of 2011, had taken $70 billion to build (https://energyintel.com/0000017b-a7be-de4c-a17b-e7fe36330001)

. What makes this even worse is that Iran's strike on this was retaliation after Israel attacked their South Pars gas field which draws from the same natural gas reservoir, which is the world's largest by far (9,700 km² - about the size of Qatar itself). Heck, on the list of the 25 largest natural gas fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_fields)

this single reservoir holds roughly 40% of their combined recoverable reserves - and is nearly 6 times bigger than the 2nd biggest field in the world. And, unlike many of the others on the list, it's only at 10% depletion (meaning 90% of the gas is still there). Which means that, probably for many years, a huge share of the gas from the world's largest reservoir simply won't be extractable, as infrastructure on both sides - Qatar's and Iran's - has now been blown up. From a global energy supply perspective, we're deep into worst-case scenario territory.

 

[dpic73]

 

[TigerGrowls]

I hear you, but just a complex world, and we're paying for soft diplomacy and incredible influence through the world. On top of just general peace.

Not saying everything we were doing was correct, that there isn't room for some course correction in any number of spheres, etc. But I think the overall strategy prior to Trump 47 was significantly better than the current admin.

Strongly disagree. We will see what happens in November.

 

[bdgan]

View attachment 1222551

I like Hassett but consumers are a big part of the economy. He's talking the party line on this.

 

[bdgan]

U.S. intel chiefs lying through their teeth on the TV right now.

You don't know that

 

[TigerGrowls]

THE DOMINO EFFECT NOBODY IS EXPLAINING TO YOU

Iran is not just a country at war.

It's a funding machine.

Since 1979, the Islamic regime has been the single biggest financier of terrorism in the Middle East.

Here is what collapses the moment that regime falls:

DOMINO 1: Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Iran sends them $700M to $1B+ per year.
That is their entire war budget.
No Iran = no Hezbollah.

DOMINO 2: Hamas (Gaza)
93% of Hamas funding comes from Iran.
$100-350M per year in cash.
No Iran = Hamas has no money to fight.

DOMINO 3: Houthis (Yemen)
$100-200M per year in direct transfers.
Plus weapons. Plus training. Plus IRGC commanders on the ground.
No Iran = Houthis go back to being a tribal militia with AKs.

DOMINO 4: Iraqi Militias
Kata'ib Hezbollah. Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq. Badr Organization.
All funded, armed, and directed by Iran's IRGC.
No Iran = they lose their patron. Fast.

DOMINO 5: Syrian Militias
Iran spent $16 BILLION propping up Assad.
The entire Syrian proxy network runs on Iranian money.
No Iran = no money, no mission.

People keep asking why this operation matters.

This is why.

One source. Five networks. Billions in annual terror funding.

Pull the source. The whole network dies.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[baltimorened]

Just wow. It will take decades for the world to trust the United States again.

UK security adviser ‘attended’ US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach

Exclusive: Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war, sources say

www.theguardian.com

if this were true before being bombed into oblivion, I would think that right now, leadership in Iran would be even more eager to give up the uranium. We'll see

 

[dpic73]

The irony that the same countries Trump asks for help also have to plan for war against the US.

 

[Chumpsky]

I like Hassett but consumers are a big part of the economy. He's talking the party line on this.

The party line being Republicans don't care about U.S. citizens

 

[Chumpsky]

You don't know that

Yes I definitely do. Guess how.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

you're right there are two sides to the coin. NATO nations, in general, have been riding on our largess for decades. The shame of it has been that our leaders have allowed it...we talk big about the need for allies to "belly up" and then do nothing. In spite of the US backlash, Trump really has been the president to say "no more" and demand that allies who made commitments actually fulfill those commitments.

But there is a point in discussions when saying the same thing - in a less than civil manner - does more harm than good.

As I posted once before, NATO is just like every organization - it has its agood points and bad points. But it has served the world well for a very long time, and we should work to make it work

I think NATO has a place in the future but wanting to show up after the war and enjoy the spoils is not. One thing I think is tastseless.

US spends our money, blood and treasure and now they want to show up at the buffet for prime rib.

Meeting the 5% defense spending should be mandatory

Also I am expecting some rules from Europes DADDY DONALD TRUMP AND THE GOOD OLE USA to make the world better and stop letting Europe get a free lunch from our work

 

[bdgan]

The party line being Republicans don't care about U.S. citizens

That's another ridiculous statement.

I think politicians on both sides often prioritize staying in office over what's best for the people but saying that they don't care about the people is absurd. You often suggest things like republicans are trying to destroy the country. What possible motive would they have to do that? They want to get reelected. Many want to run for higher office. They want to be remembered for doing great things.

You can disagree with their policies but it's insane to think the way you do. Trump is 80 yrs old and he's a narcissist. He's smart enough to understand that his life expectancy is limited and he wants to be remembered as a great president. Same with Biden, Obama, etc.

 

[Chumpsky]

That's another ridiculous statement.

I think politicians on both sides often prioritize staying in office over what's best for the people but saying that they don't care about the people is absurd. You often suggest things like republicans are trying to destroy the country. What possible motive would they have to do that? They want to get reelected. Many want to run for higher office. They want to be remembered for doing great things.

You can disagree with their policies but it's insane to think the way you do. Trump is 80 yrs old and he's a narcissist. He's smart enough to understand that his life expectancy is limited and he wants to be remembered as a great president. Same with Biden, Obama, etc.

what? He literally said the consumers are of no concern to us right now. What will it take for you to accept that trump and his people don't give a crap about you or any citizen of this country? Since telling you straight to your face doesn't seem to work?

 

[ANEW]

Protested the regime. 19yrs old.
Iran hangs champion olympic wrestler

 

[bdgan]

what? He literally said the consumers are of no concern to us right now. What will it take for you to accept that trump and his people don't give a crap about you or any citizen of this country? Since telling you straight to your face doesn't seem to work?

You got me Chump. Trump and fellow republicans are devoted to screwing over as many Americans as possible. That's how they expect to get elected.

 

[ANEW]

Newsmax reporting a harder-line Europe/NATO statment vs Iran. Sounds like they are starting to lean towards chipping in to help secure their own oil supply.

IMHO they're going to help. They just need some time to pout about it first. .

Europe/NATO closer to chipping in?

 

[Chumpsky]

You got me Chump. Trump and fellow republicans are devoted to screwing over as many Americans as possible. That's how they expect to get elected.

Jesus

 

[Chumpsky]

 

[Chumpsky]

Father of service member killed in Iran war said he never told Pete Hegseth to 'finish' the job

Hegseth said "family after family" of service members killed urged the administration to “not stop until the job is done." The father said he appreciated the compassion that Hegseth and Trump showed him during their visit.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[ANEW]

View attachment 1224651

Yes. It could have. We could have dumbasses on blusky, and/or working at ABC, doing it.

USCENTCOM planners and the navy admiral who is in command there, are well aware of what MCM assets are where and what they are doing and when they might be needed.

And not that accuracy matters on blusky, or with ABC for that matter, the "last 4 vessels" blusky dumbass is referring to , aren't the last 4.

 

[Jfcarter3]

Thank goodness there won't be any boots on the ground. ​

​

Thousands more US Marines are deploying to the Middle East, officials say​

Thousands more US Marines and sailors are heading towards the Middle East as the war with Iran is about to enter its fourth week. The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Boxer Amphibious Ready Group have had their deployment rerouted and accelerated and are now expected to go to the Middle East, two US officials told CNN.
One of the officials said it was unclear if the entire ARG-MEU (Amphibious Ready Group and Marine Expeditionary Unit) would be deploying or if only some elements would be going to the Middle East. The group was originally expected to deploy to the Indo-Pacific region, the official said. It is also unclear when the original deployment date was, when the Marines would arrive in the region, or what specifically they would be doing when they arrived.
The deployment, first reported by Newsmax, comes as a second Marine expeditionary unit — the 31st MEU, and the Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group — are also deploying to the region. CNN previously reported that the USS Tripoli was seen approaching Singapore earlier this week.
It’s unclear if both MEUs will operate in the Middle East simultaneously and for how long, or if the 11th MEU will replace the 31st upon its arrival.
The MEUs are rapid-response forces consisting of roughly 2,200 Marines and sailors. With the Amphibious Ready Group, the total number of personnel is roughly 4,500. While they can provide on-the-ground capabilities, the ARG-MEUs also come with aviation, logistics, and other support elements that provide more options to commanders and could “relieve pressure” on current operations in the Middle East, the first US official said.
MEUs are a Swiss Army knife of military capabilities: they have supported large-scale evacuation operations and other on-the-ground missions, and they come with substantial aviation and logistics components. The 11th MEU is capable of “conducting amphibious operations, selected maritime special operations at night or under adverse weather conditions, crisis response and limited contingency operations,” the unit’s website says.

 

[dpic73]