“But, as you see, it's a beautiful day, the Strait of Hormuz is open and people are having a wonderful time!” pic.twitter.com/pOSW3rPhul
— Scarlett’s Movie Musings (@ScarletCinema) March 13, 2026
President Trump announces military strikes on Iran: Operation Epic Fury
73,152 Views |
1695 Replies |
Last: 14 min ago by KaiBear
Wangchung said:Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
303Bear said:
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
This. You can't also think solely in terms of "symmetric losses" (how many of ours vs how many of theirs). You have to consider the bigger strategic picture, what a long term elevation of energy prices will to do the economy, etc. The threshold for an Iranian victory is much lower than it is for us to win.
D. C. Bear said:
As an aside, you will also find that Gen Z is the first generation to perform lower on certain measures of cognitive skills than the previous generation: "According to experts, Gen Z is underperforming in multiple cognitive areas, including memory, attention, executive function and overall IQ…"
There are a lot of possible explanations for this ranging from the data presented in the book The Bell Curve + changing demographics to the decreasing quality of public education and screen time.
Not all of the explanations are compatible with government promoted narratives.
303Bear said:Wangchung said:Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
We seem to be are in the same position with big Navy guns. The old 16" guns we had that would pulverize that coastline where those small boats are hiding are gone. We now either use very expensive missiles and air strikes or use 5" guns that just don't have the same punch, We were supposed to replace with the rail gun, Advance Gun System or the US Army SRLC either never came on line or didn't work. We removed capability or rely on 50 year old systems to save money.
I am no expert, I am sure there are Navy/Marines here that know what we have and what would work. Love to hear from any former ANGLICO or Gunnery Mates here.
Realitybites said:D. C. Bear said:
As an aside, you will also find that Gen Z is the first generation to perform lower on certain measures of cognitive skills than the previous generation: "According to experts, Gen Z is underperforming in multiple cognitive areas, including memory, attention, executive function and overall IQ…"
There are a lot of possible explanations for this ranging from the data presented in the book The Bell Curve + changing demographics to the decreasing quality of public education and screen time.
Not all of the explanations are compatible with government promoted narratives.
Wow, we are on the Bell Curve? Going full in aren't you...
FLBear5630 said:
Wow, we are on the Bell Curve? Going full in aren't you...
You should read it and make up your own mind about the data it presents. I've always found that reading and analyzing primary source material is a better path to wisdom than simply accepting narratives about things at face value.
This is one of the reasons why I, a perfectly average physical specimen in average health, am alive today while my cousin's husband of the same age who was training for a Triathlon + 4 Covid shots is dead.
303Bear said:Wangchung said:Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
Getting troops on the island…. no big deal
Getting troops off the island…. HUGE deal
I'm assuming we are there to stay.
Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
Wow, we are on the Bell Curve? Going full in aren't you...
You should read it and make up your own mind about the data it presents. I've always found that reading and analyzing primary source material is a better path to wisdom than simply accepting narratives about things at face value.
This is one of the reasons why I, a perfectly average physical specimen in average health, am alive today while my cousin's husband of the same age who was training for a Triathlon + 4 Covid shots is dead.
I have read it. Actually, back in the 94 when it came out and a second time for a Sociology course. Brave read, it is one of the most controversial books in Sociology ever and the methods used have been scrutinized thoroughly. If I remember correctly, the problem with it was all things being equal the facts seem to be what is stated. The problem was it did not take confounding variables into account.
Look up the Flynn Effect and the Bell Curve. As you said, the source material.
That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the US is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.303Bear said:Wangchung said:Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
LIB,MR BEARS said:303Bear said:Wangchung said:Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
Getting troops on the island…. no big deal
Getting troops off the island…. HUGE deal
I'm assuming we are there to stay.
The more I read about the island and its importance regarding Iranian oil production…….the more sense it makes to occupy it.
Miles from the coastline….would be difficult for the Iranians to reinforce since our ships dominate the waters.
Would put the US in control of Iranian oil production without having to destroy the oil fields.
This is a situation marines train for…..but most have not seen any combat.
Going to be interesting.
Wangchung said:303Bear said:Wangchung said:Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the bias is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
As the leader of the US, Trump's team has to set what the conditions existed to require this use of force, what are we doing and what is the objective. ESPECIALLY, since he ran on a non-war platform and said that his opponents would get us in war with Iran. He made fun of Harris as going to do exactly what he is doing. He has to tell Congress (details) and American people why we are there.
You guys say it is an anti-Trump thing, it isn't. It is a Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran thing.
So far when questioned, Trump's DoD has complained that they shouldn't be asking or like you say "you don't need to know". That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy.
We can win every engagement and lose the war. Geez, sounds like Viet Nam. This is not about tactics, US military will win their engagements and achieve their objectives, no doubt. Can the leadership get a victory? It will not be bombs that get it.
So, you don't need to know the details of every plan. But if he put Marines on Kharg Island, he better tell the American people why, what the mission is and how long we will be there. There does not seem to be a long term plan or that this was thought out.
" That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy." Lol, no, he doesn't have to tell the world his war plans. That's an insane thing to claim. The fact you don't know what we are taking Kharg island is not an indictment of the war, the president, or anything other than your lack of knowledge on the topic. We don't tell our enemies our schedule nor our strategy. Iran is not wild like Vietnam or Afghanistan, they can rebuild themselves. Is there a possibility the MIC could take over and try to drag this out like Afghanistan? Sure. But the only indication we have that MIGHT happen is people from other administrations did it in the pastZ That's it. Sorry, but fear based on confessed ignorance of the current war plans is not a credible opinion. I fully agree that, based on my own knowledge, that I dont see a reason for pulling the trigger on this, and I agree that now that we are committed we have to go all out and win. Where you and I differ is measuring the progress by imagination and zero sum.FLBear5630 said:Wangchung said:303Bear said:Wangchung said:Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the bias is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
As the leader of the US, Trump's team has to set what the conditions existed to require this use of force, what are we doing and what is the objective. ESPECIALLY, since he ran on a non-war platform and said that his opponents would get us in war with Iran. He made fun of Harris as going to do exactly what he is doing. He has to tell Congress (details) and American people why we are there.
You guys say it is an anti-Trump thing, it isn't. It is a Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran thing.
So far when questioned, Trump's DoD has complained that they shouldn't be asking or like you say "you don't need to know". That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy.
We can win every engagement and lose the war. Geez, sounds like Viet Nam. This is not about tactics, US military will win their engagements and achieve their objectives, no doubt. Can the leadership get a victory? It will not be bombs that get it.
So, you don't need to know the details of every plan. But if he put Marines on Kharg Island, he better tell the American people why, what the mission is and how long we will be there. There does not seem to be a long term plan or that this was thought out.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung said:FLBear5630 said:Wangchung said:303Bear said:Wangchung said:Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the bias is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
As the leader of the US, Trump's team has to set what the conditions existed to require this use of force, what are we doing and what is the objective. ESPECIALLY, since he ran on a non-war platform and said that his opponents would get us in war with Iran. He made fun of Harris as going to do exactly what he is doing. He has to tell Congress (details) and American people why we are there.
You guys say it is an anti-Trump thing, it isn't. It is a Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran thing.
So far when questioned, Trump's DoD has complained that they shouldn't be asking or like you say "you don't need to know". That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy.
We can win every engagement and lose the war. Geez, sounds like Viet Nam. This is not about tactics, US military will win their engagements and achieve their objectives, no doubt. Can the leadership get a victory? It will not be bombs that get it.
So, you don't need to know the details of every plan. But if he put Marines on Kharg Island, he better tell the American people why, what the mission is and how long we will be there. There does not seem to be a long term plan or that this was thought out.
" That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy." Lol, no, he doesn't have to tell the world his war plans. That's an insane thing to claim. The fact you don't know what we are taking Kharg island is not an indictment of the war, the president, or anything other than your lack of knowledge on the topic. We don't tell our enemies our schedule nor our strategy. Iran is not wild like Vietnam or Afghanistan, they can rebuild themselves. Is there a possibility the MIC could take over and try to drag this out like Afghanistan? Sure. But the only indication we have that MIGHT happen is people from other administrations did it in the pastZ That's it. Sorry, but fear based on confessed ignorance of the current war plans is not a credible opinion. I fully agree that, based on my own knowledge, that I dont see a reason for pulling the trigger on this, and I agree that now that we are committed we have to go all out and win. Where you and I differ is measuring the progress by imagination and zero sum.
You just don't get it. You will see in November. Yes, he does or he will pay (as he is seeing now).
You continue to mistake tactics for strategy. He is the Commander in Chief, but he reports to Congress and the Electorate. The American people through Congress declare war, not him. As Commander in Chief he has the latitude of how to do it, NOT WHAT.
Why are we there? What is the overarching plan? Why are we bombing Iran now? How long will we be there? What comes after? These are all legitimate questions for the Administration to provide answers. This is basic stuff - Why, What, When, How long, and after. Basic information.
Are we there for regime change and when that comes who will take over Iran? You have an armed force of 600k. A population of 88M. This is not a Venezuela kidnapping. You are acting like it is Granada to rescue some college kids from 1500 Cubans.
even radical leftists are beginning to see things clearly:
>>
boies:
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn't be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address.
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt Iran's development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its nuclear program. In the face of Iran's refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. Trump began the current military campaign.
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump's action. The isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, to devastate a city.
I also understandand deplorethe fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel's enemies. What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops at the water's edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice President Thomas Jefferson's attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
America's national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I'm not counting on it, but maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will return the favor, and judge that president's efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits and not merely obstruct.
...
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/partisanship-on-iran-is-dangerous-for-america-c8b69387
<<
- UF
{ sipping coffee }
>>
boies:
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn't be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address.
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt Iran's development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its nuclear program. In the face of Iran's refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. Trump began the current military campaign.
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump's action. The isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, to devastate a city.
I also understandand deplorethe fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel's enemies. What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops at the water's edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice President Thomas Jefferson's attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
America's national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I'm not counting on it, but maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will return the favor, and judge that president's efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits and not merely obstruct.
...
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/partisanship-on-iran-is-dangerous-for-america-c8b69387
<<
- UF
{ sipping coffee }
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Good grief Florida , . get off this BS.
Presidents have been pushing the American public into wars since 1917.
WW1
WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Aftganistan
Iraq
Since there is no draft.....most Americans consider this war little more than a debating point or video game.
It is always about the economy....and the economy is weakening.
Right, wrong or indifferent ...Trump's policies were always going to be painful in the short term.
And because of the economy Republicans are going to pay a big price in November.
Presidents have been pushing the American public into wars since 1917.
WW1
WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Aftganistan
Iraq
Since there is no draft.....most Americans consider this war little more than a debating point or video game.
It is always about the economy....and the economy is weakening.
Right, wrong or indifferent ...Trump's policies were always going to be painful in the short term.
And because of the economy Republicans are going to pay a big price in November.
KaiBear said:
Good grief Florida , . get off this BS.
Presidents have been pus...ng to pay a big price in November.
makes one wonder - has he been spraying bugs around le maison???
PA.
- le UF
D!
Lay Off the Pyrethrins, Citoyens!!
{ eating donut }
Go Bears!!
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
"How long will we be there?" Again, the fact you think the government should provide the public and their enemies with a timeline exposes exactly why your opinion here is silly.FLBear5630 said:Wangchung said:FLBear5630 said:Wangchung said:303Bear said:Wangchung said:Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the bias is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
As the leader of the US, Trump's team has to set what the conditions existed to require this use of force, what are we doing and what is the objective. ESPECIALLY, since he ran on a non-war platform and said that his opponents would get us in war with Iran. He made fun of Harris as going to do exactly what he is doing. He has to tell Congress (details) and American people why we are there.
You guys say it is an anti-Trump thing, it isn't. It is a Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran thing.
So far when questioned, Trump's DoD has complained that they shouldn't be asking or like you say "you don't need to know". That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy.
We can win every engagement and lose the war. Geez, sounds like Viet Nam. This is not about tactics, US military will win their engagements and achieve their objectives, no doubt. Can the leadership get a victory? It will not be bombs that get it.
So, you don't need to know the details of every plan. But if he put Marines on Kharg Island, he better tell the American people why, what the mission is and how long we will be there. There does not seem to be a long term plan or that this was thought out.
" That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy." Lol, no, he doesn't have to tell the world his war plans. That's an insane thing to claim. The fact you don't know what we are taking Kharg island is not an indictment of the war, the president, or anything other than your lack of knowledge on the topic. We don't tell our enemies our schedule nor our strategy. Iran is not wild like Vietnam or Afghanistan, they can rebuild themselves. Is there a possibility the MIC could take over and try to drag this out like Afghanistan? Sure. But the only indication we have that MIGHT happen is people from other administrations did it in the pastZ That's it. Sorry, but fear based on confessed ignorance of the current war plans is not a credible opinion. I fully agree that, based on my own knowledge, that I dont see a reason for pulling the trigger on this, and I agree that now that we are committed we have to go all out and win. Where you and I differ is measuring the progress by imagination and zero sum.
You just don't get it. You will see in November. Yes, he does or he will pay (as he is seeing now).
You continue to mistake tactics for strategy. He is the Commander in Chief, but he reports to Congress and the Electorate. The American people through Congress declare war, not him. As Commander in Chief he has the latitude of how to do it, NOT WHAT.
Why are we there? What is the overarching plan? Why are we bombing Iran now? How long will we be there? What comes after? These are all legitimate questions for the Administration to provide answers. This is basic stuff - Why, What, When, How long, and after. Basic information.
Are we there for regime change and when that comes who will take over Iran? You have an armed force of 600k. A population of 88M. This is not a Venezuela kidnapping. You are acting like it is Granada to rescue some college kids from 1500 Cubans.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
KaiBear said:
Good grief Florida , . get off this BS.
Presidents have been pushing the American public into wars since 1917.
WW1
WW2
Korea
Vietnam
Aftganistan
Iraq
Since there is no draft.....most Americans consider this war little more than a debating point or video game.
It is always about the economy....and the economy is weakening.
Right, wrong or indifferent ...Trump's policies were always going to be painful in the short term.
And because of the economy Republicans are going to pay a big price in November.
I agree with you, you are correct. The only one there I disagree is WW2, Congress and the public kept us out for a long time.
Your two points are connected, debating point? Until gas hits $4.
Unfortunately, he doesn't have the time to get through the painful time. So, November is going to be bad. I just pray the Dems learned and run someone with some intelligence.
Sad, Trump has some successes and good ideas if he can get out of his own way. He needs a new Comms team.
>>
Iran faces financial death blow because of war
Story by Brady Knox, Washington Examiner
Iran faces financial death blow because of war
Already strained by decades of sanctions and economic mismanagement, Iran faces a complete financial collapse as a result of its war with the U.S. and Israel.
The U.S. and Israel's attack against Iran has driven international trade, the energy industry, and much of the financial system to a halt, further worsening the economic situation of the country. President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the U.S. forces had bombed Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil facility in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran had already descended into the worst economic crisis in its history in December, characterized by sky-high inflation, food shortages, an energy crisis, and the spread of poverty. The crisis triggered the largest protests in Iran's recent history, culminating in the mass shooting of protesters by regime forces on Jan. 8-9.
IRAN ROLLS OUT $7 PAYMENTS TO QUELL AFFORDABILITY PROTESTS
Research Fellow and Middle East expert Zineb Riboua, at the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East, Hudson Institute, believes the war has triggered a spiral that Tehran is unlikely to escape.
Currency collapse
One of the most significant signs of an imminent financial collapse was an odd pattern with the Iranian Rial in recent days its appreciation by 13%.
"It's odd, right? A ten-day economic shutdown should produce currency depreciation, not appreciation. When you see the opposite, it tells you that someone is intervening deliberately. Maybe the central bank is drawing down reserves. Maybe assets are being mobilized through back channels. Maybe the Russians and the Chinese are helping. They have the means and the motive to provide that kind of support quietly," Riboua said.
An appreciation of Iran's currency signals a sudden injection of money from elsewhere. While this may help them survive for the moment, problems will begin to cascade when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's payday comes.
"The moment those obligations come due, liquidity enters an economy that has almost nothing left to buy. When people realize the money is circulating, but the goods are not there, you get a collapse in confidence, and capital starts moving out very fast," Riboua explained.
CONSERVATIVES COMPLAIN GOP CONGRESS ISN'T DOING ENOUGH AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS
"The Iranian financial system is not functioning as a coherent system anymore. There is a huge loss of trust in the Rial as a currency. Ordinary Iranians are treating the dollar as the only reliable store of value, which is why they are leaving or doing other things," she added. "That kind of dollarization pressure does not reverse easily. It reflects a structural judgment by the population that their own currency cannot be trusted."
Despite the incoherency of Iran's financial system, the government is savvy enough to concentrate its increasingly limited resources on its security forces. Some bullish analysts optimistic about the government's collapse estimated that Tehran could soon become unable to pay the Guards, triggering defections, especially after Israeli cyberattacks on Iranian banks and a Wednesday airstrike against a Bank Sepah data center.
Riboua disagreed, but warned that the measures taken to pay the Guards would have long-lasting consequences.
"The IRGC, they are very brutal, they are very violent, they will make sure they get paid. And there were indications of that in the draft budget for the Iranian fiscal year starting March 21, 2026, where the government appeared to be transferring the bulk of oil export revenues directly to them and increasing taxes on top of that," she explained. "In early 2026, the IRGC was also linked to over $1 billion in transactions via cryptocurrency exchanges. So they are getting paid through every channel available."
"But if they get paid and receive large bonuses for contributing to saving the Republic or whatever, it will trigger a huge loss of trust in the economy. You are already in a situation where people have no confidence, and then you add that on top of it," Riboua added.
MAJOR RACES IN DC COULD CHANGE THE CITY'S STATUS QUO
An economy primed for collapse
The radical nature of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, followed by the breaking of taboos such as the seizing of the American Embassy, immediately isolated the country. Since the revolution, the regime's economic policy has focused on self-sufficiency while working to gain access to global markets. The clerical government has prioritized the maintenance and export of its Islamic ideology first and foremost, with economics playing second fiddle. This would lead to a dual process that has put the government into a pit almost impossible to get out of.
Political scientist Ali Alfoneh outlined the process by which former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had to purge and hollow out the clerical establishment to protect his rule, then increasingly rely on the IRGC to suppress his domestic enemies and shore up his power. Over his nearly three decades of rule, this resulted in the IRGC gradually expanding its power and further integrating itself into all sectors of public life, including the economy.
IRGC leaders were granted corrupt deals to keep them satisfied, resulting in heavy mismanagement in vital sectors, most notably in the country's water infrastructure. This corruption, the incentives it has provided, and the regime's desire to harness its natural resources to send to its few allies turned Iran into an extractive, unsustainable economy.
"In general, they're not doing well," Riboua said of Iran's finances. "Whatever short-term measures Tehran takes, the underlying architecture of their economy cannot sustain this. The resource base is being consumed, not replenished. I just do not see their economy functioning as a proper economy. They are definitely going to suffer a huge collapse from this."
B-2 STEALTH BOMBERS, ONE-WAY ATTACK DRONES AND MORE: THE MACHINERY AND WEAPONRY BEING USED BY US IN IRAN
The collapse, she argued, has already begun, with its extractive economy geared toward the military insufficiently meeting Iranians' needs.
"I generally think we are already in an economic collapse, because the regime is just very focused on having, I do not know if you can call it a war economy, but a very extractive economy. It is primarily geared toward building up its military and its regional proxies. That is what the whole structure serves. Everything else is secondary," Riboua said.
"You have overall inflation that reached 68% in February 2026, and food inflation at 110%, which means ordinary Iranians have been losing ground continuously, regardless of anything happening at the military level. Bread and cereals up 142%. Cooking oil up 207%. These are not numbers that a functioning economy produces," the Hudson fellow explained.
"And then you add the water crisis on top of that. Over 70% of major aquifers are considered overdrawn. Tehran's main reservoirs were sitting at around 11% capacity before any of this started. The government has chronically underfunded all of that because the money goes elsewhere. So when people talk about the economy breaking down, it is not one thing. It is everything collapsing at the same time, and this was already the case before any military escalation," she explained.
All the hallmarks of an economic collapse are there, including the gradual shutdown and deterioration of public services, shortages of basic goods, and major rises in the cost of living.
Energy woes
Iran's greatest asset is its oil industry it's the third-largest producer within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and makes up roughly 4.5% of the global oil supply. This industry was already in trouble before the war, due to a combination of sanctions, mismanagement, and capital flight. The pressures created by the war could prove crippling.
HUGO GURDON: TRUMP GETS THE LAST LAUGH
Riboua explained the complex process by which Iran exports its oil, a process made increasingly difficult by harsh sanctions.
"Iran ships its oil through a shadow fleet of aging tankers, most of them uninsured, flagged under third countries, with their tracking systems turned off. They do ship-to-ship transfers in international waters to obscure the origin. Those cargoes land at independent Chinese refineries, the so-called teapot refineries in Shandong Province, which buy Iranian oil at a discount and deliberately misreport it in customs data," she said.
Iran was exporting approximately 1.6 million barrels per day, largely through this method, with the vast majority going to China. The payments for the oil didn't go through normal banking; instead, they navigated through a complex system designed to evade sanctions.
"They go through a parallel system of front companies, exchange houses, and shell entities, primarily set up in places like Hong Kong, which generate fictitious invoices and layer the transactions until they are unrecognizable. FinCEN identified roughly $9 billion in transactions linked to this network in 2024 alone. That money then gets routed back to pay the IRGC, pay the militias, and procure components for missiles and drones," Riboua said.
DHS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS 'AN INSANE SITUATION': BYRON YORK
Recent moves have ended the heyday of the system, with the U.S. systematically targeting each part.
"That entire circuit is now under severe pressure. The shadow fleet is being sanctioned vessel by vessel, the teapot refineries are being designated, and the front company networks are being dismantled. The inputs are shrinking, and the obligations are not. Iran is therefore already inside a severe economic crisis, and the architecture it was built to survive sanctions is being taken apart piece by piece," Riboua said.
Kharg Island serves as the key point of Iran's oil industry, processing 90-95% of Iran's oil exports. The U.S. and Israel attacked the island on Friday, but refrained from striking its oil infrastructure. Indicators show that production on the island has largely ground to a halt.
Rystad Energy showed the Washington Examiner a graphic demonstrating a steep decline in Iranian oil production since January, with a further crash imminent. The threats to shipping, especially if Iran decides to mine the Strait of Hormuz, are likely to further reduce Iran's oil revenue.
Susan Bell, senior vice president of Rystad Energy, told the Washington Examiner that they've observed a halt in oil shipments since the beginning of the conflict, with just three already loaded vessels sailing through the strait.
HOW MUCH HAS THE WAR WITH IRAN COST THE US?
"We've observed three vessels leaving Iran via the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the conflict through 10 March. Since then, there have been no cargoes reported as loaded/transiting from Iran, so we cannot confirm that flows are increasing," she said. "It is possible the vessels are moving fully dark, so we cannot find their voyages. Two of the cargoes were crude oil loaded at Kharg Island, while one was South Pars condensate loaded at Assaluyeh."
If Iran is deprived of its oil revenue, the currency crisis and inflation will become even worse. U.S. and Israeli fears of global market backlash are the one factor preventing such a move, but as the war drags on, their calculations could change.
<<
- UF
Iran faces financial death blow because of war
Story by Brady Knox, Washington Examiner
Iran faces financial death blow because of war
Already strained by decades of sanctions and economic mismanagement, Iran faces a complete financial collapse as a result of its war with the U.S. and Israel.
The U.S. and Israel's attack against Iran has driven international trade, the energy industry, and much of the financial system to a halt, further worsening the economic situation of the country. President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the U.S. forces had bombed Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil facility in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran had already descended into the worst economic crisis in its history in December, characterized by sky-high inflation, food shortages, an energy crisis, and the spread of poverty. The crisis triggered the largest protests in Iran's recent history, culminating in the mass shooting of protesters by regime forces on Jan. 8-9.
IRAN ROLLS OUT $7 PAYMENTS TO QUELL AFFORDABILITY PROTESTS
Research Fellow and Middle East expert Zineb Riboua, at the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East, Hudson Institute, believes the war has triggered a spiral that Tehran is unlikely to escape.
Currency collapse
One of the most significant signs of an imminent financial collapse was an odd pattern with the Iranian Rial in recent days its appreciation by 13%.
"It's odd, right? A ten-day economic shutdown should produce currency depreciation, not appreciation. When you see the opposite, it tells you that someone is intervening deliberately. Maybe the central bank is drawing down reserves. Maybe assets are being mobilized through back channels. Maybe the Russians and the Chinese are helping. They have the means and the motive to provide that kind of support quietly," Riboua said.
An appreciation of Iran's currency signals a sudden injection of money from elsewhere. While this may help them survive for the moment, problems will begin to cascade when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's payday comes.
"The moment those obligations come due, liquidity enters an economy that has almost nothing left to buy. When people realize the money is circulating, but the goods are not there, you get a collapse in confidence, and capital starts moving out very fast," Riboua explained.
CONSERVATIVES COMPLAIN GOP CONGRESS ISN'T DOING ENOUGH AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS
"The Iranian financial system is not functioning as a coherent system anymore. There is a huge loss of trust in the Rial as a currency. Ordinary Iranians are treating the dollar as the only reliable store of value, which is why they are leaving or doing other things," she added. "That kind of dollarization pressure does not reverse easily. It reflects a structural judgment by the population that their own currency cannot be trusted."
Despite the incoherency of Iran's financial system, the government is savvy enough to concentrate its increasingly limited resources on its security forces. Some bullish analysts optimistic about the government's collapse estimated that Tehran could soon become unable to pay the Guards, triggering defections, especially after Israeli cyberattacks on Iranian banks and a Wednesday airstrike against a Bank Sepah data center.
Riboua disagreed, but warned that the measures taken to pay the Guards would have long-lasting consequences.
"The IRGC, they are very brutal, they are very violent, they will make sure they get paid. And there were indications of that in the draft budget for the Iranian fiscal year starting March 21, 2026, where the government appeared to be transferring the bulk of oil export revenues directly to them and increasing taxes on top of that," she explained. "In early 2026, the IRGC was also linked to over $1 billion in transactions via cryptocurrency exchanges. So they are getting paid through every channel available."
"But if they get paid and receive large bonuses for contributing to saving the Republic or whatever, it will trigger a huge loss of trust in the economy. You are already in a situation where people have no confidence, and then you add that on top of it," Riboua added.
MAJOR RACES IN DC COULD CHANGE THE CITY'S STATUS QUO
An economy primed for collapse
The radical nature of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, followed by the breaking of taboos such as the seizing of the American Embassy, immediately isolated the country. Since the revolution, the regime's economic policy has focused on self-sufficiency while working to gain access to global markets. The clerical government has prioritized the maintenance and export of its Islamic ideology first and foremost, with economics playing second fiddle. This would lead to a dual process that has put the government into a pit almost impossible to get out of.
Political scientist Ali Alfoneh outlined the process by which former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had to purge and hollow out the clerical establishment to protect his rule, then increasingly rely on the IRGC to suppress his domestic enemies and shore up his power. Over his nearly three decades of rule, this resulted in the IRGC gradually expanding its power and further integrating itself into all sectors of public life, including the economy.
IRGC leaders were granted corrupt deals to keep them satisfied, resulting in heavy mismanagement in vital sectors, most notably in the country's water infrastructure. This corruption, the incentives it has provided, and the regime's desire to harness its natural resources to send to its few allies turned Iran into an extractive, unsustainable economy.
"In general, they're not doing well," Riboua said of Iran's finances. "Whatever short-term measures Tehran takes, the underlying architecture of their economy cannot sustain this. The resource base is being consumed, not replenished. I just do not see their economy functioning as a proper economy. They are definitely going to suffer a huge collapse from this."
B-2 STEALTH BOMBERS, ONE-WAY ATTACK DRONES AND MORE: THE MACHINERY AND WEAPONRY BEING USED BY US IN IRAN
The collapse, she argued, has already begun, with its extractive economy geared toward the military insufficiently meeting Iranians' needs.
"I generally think we are already in an economic collapse, because the regime is just very focused on having, I do not know if you can call it a war economy, but a very extractive economy. It is primarily geared toward building up its military and its regional proxies. That is what the whole structure serves. Everything else is secondary," Riboua said.
"You have overall inflation that reached 68% in February 2026, and food inflation at 110%, which means ordinary Iranians have been losing ground continuously, regardless of anything happening at the military level. Bread and cereals up 142%. Cooking oil up 207%. These are not numbers that a functioning economy produces," the Hudson fellow explained.
"And then you add the water crisis on top of that. Over 70% of major aquifers are considered overdrawn. Tehran's main reservoirs were sitting at around 11% capacity before any of this started. The government has chronically underfunded all of that because the money goes elsewhere. So when people talk about the economy breaking down, it is not one thing. It is everything collapsing at the same time, and this was already the case before any military escalation," she explained.
All the hallmarks of an economic collapse are there, including the gradual shutdown and deterioration of public services, shortages of basic goods, and major rises in the cost of living.
Energy woes
Iran's greatest asset is its oil industry it's the third-largest producer within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and makes up roughly 4.5% of the global oil supply. This industry was already in trouble before the war, due to a combination of sanctions, mismanagement, and capital flight. The pressures created by the war could prove crippling.
HUGO GURDON: TRUMP GETS THE LAST LAUGH
Riboua explained the complex process by which Iran exports its oil, a process made increasingly difficult by harsh sanctions.
"Iran ships its oil through a shadow fleet of aging tankers, most of them uninsured, flagged under third countries, with their tracking systems turned off. They do ship-to-ship transfers in international waters to obscure the origin. Those cargoes land at independent Chinese refineries, the so-called teapot refineries in Shandong Province, which buy Iranian oil at a discount and deliberately misreport it in customs data," she said.
Iran was exporting approximately 1.6 million barrels per day, largely through this method, with the vast majority going to China. The payments for the oil didn't go through normal banking; instead, they navigated through a complex system designed to evade sanctions.
"They go through a parallel system of front companies, exchange houses, and shell entities, primarily set up in places like Hong Kong, which generate fictitious invoices and layer the transactions until they are unrecognizable. FinCEN identified roughly $9 billion in transactions linked to this network in 2024 alone. That money then gets routed back to pay the IRGC, pay the militias, and procure components for missiles and drones," Riboua said.
DHS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS 'AN INSANE SITUATION': BYRON YORK
Recent moves have ended the heyday of the system, with the U.S. systematically targeting each part.
"That entire circuit is now under severe pressure. The shadow fleet is being sanctioned vessel by vessel, the teapot refineries are being designated, and the front company networks are being dismantled. The inputs are shrinking, and the obligations are not. Iran is therefore already inside a severe economic crisis, and the architecture it was built to survive sanctions is being taken apart piece by piece," Riboua said.
Kharg Island serves as the key point of Iran's oil industry, processing 90-95% of Iran's oil exports. The U.S. and Israel attacked the island on Friday, but refrained from striking its oil infrastructure. Indicators show that production on the island has largely ground to a halt.
Rystad Energy showed the Washington Examiner a graphic demonstrating a steep decline in Iranian oil production since January, with a further crash imminent. The threats to shipping, especially if Iran decides to mine the Strait of Hormuz, are likely to further reduce Iran's oil revenue.
Susan Bell, senior vice president of Rystad Energy, told the Washington Examiner that they've observed a halt in oil shipments since the beginning of the conflict, with just three already loaded vessels sailing through the strait.
HOW MUCH HAS THE WAR WITH IRAN COST THE US?
"We've observed three vessels leaving Iran via the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the conflict through 10 March. Since then, there have been no cargoes reported as loaded/transiting from Iran, so we cannot confirm that flows are increasing," she said. "It is possible the vessels are moving fully dark, so we cannot find their voyages. Two of the cargoes were crude oil loaded at Kharg Island, while one was South Pars condensate loaded at Assaluyeh."
If Iran is deprived of its oil revenue, the currency crisis and inflation will become even worse. U.S. and Israeli fears of global market backlash are the one factor preventing such a move, but as the war drags on, their calculations could change.
<<
- UF
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
william said:
even radical leftists are beginning to see things clearly:
>>
boies:
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn't be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address.
Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt Iran's development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its nuclear program. In the face of Iran's refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Mr. Trump began the current military campaign.
I understand some of the hostility to Mr. Trump's action. The isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, to devastate a city.
I also understandand deplorethe fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel's enemies. What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward Mr. Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops at the water's edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice President Thomas Jefferson's attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt.
America's national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action had been taken by Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. I'm not counting on it, but maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will return the favor, and judge that president's efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits and not merely obstruct.
...
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/partisanship-on-iran-is-dangerous-for-america-c8b69387
<<
- UF
{ sipping coffee }
Good piece. And, realistically, given the current domestic political context, the only President who could finally take this sort of action is a lame duck Republican.
But it is probably going to be politically very costly.
Thanks. Good article.
— Tim Burchett (@timburchett) March 14, 2026
We have destroyed 100% of Iran’s military capability, except for its drones, mines, missiles, boats, ships pic.twitter.com/ZyUtQ4Mjbu
— Stephen Wertheim (@stephenwertheim) March 14, 2026
This is about to get messier… unless this is just bluster
BREAKING: Iran has threatened to strike Ukraine over its alleged support for Israel’s defense against Iranian drones, saying the entire territory of Ukraine is now considered a “legitimate target.”
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 14, 2026
Wangchung said:That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the US is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.303Bear said:Wangchung said:Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
The issue is that Iran has always been wild toddler, and when we declare the war to be over, and 99% of the threat we know about is eliminated, their terrorism will begin rebuilding itself.
We needed to have clear objectives, and be able to accomplish them. We were told their nuclear weapons capability was the reason for the war, but according to reporting, we dont think we can accomplish the objective of removing that capability completely. We were told that we needed to set their ballistic missile program back, and while I agree, it seems that we have no good counter for their hidden drone launching capability. Arguably the drones can disrupt American life more than their ballistic missiles. Did I once hear "America first?"
Now, it could be that we have answers for that. I am sure we are scanning the coastline with AI and people trying to detect hidden tunnels and launchers. Maybe in 2 weeks we can take most of their drones out. That is great. Terrorists need to have their weapons taken away, just like the wild toddlers they are.
We will see. What is certain is that Trump really believed the whole thing would he over in a week. And instead, at about a month, we will send in Marines.
It's easy to be critical when it seems we have gotten in way over our heads, when Trump/Vance have been oh so critical in the past, of their exact present actions, when Rubio said out loud that we weren't going to do this except Israel said "hey, we are going to war with Iran, wanna cone along?", when it seems we might pull out having not degraded their nuclear capability, and when we bombed their leader but now have to deal with an even worse leader. Are we just going to accept that?
The criticism is justified so far. We have failed to achieve any of our goals in the timeframe specified. You might be ok with that, but you should be able to understand why many are very worried about a prolonged invasion, because we all know how it will go.
The terrorists can multiply even faster than the Fed can print money (figuratively speaking). All they have to do is wait. We won't be there forever.
If this fucking warmonger doesn’t want this war, it must be bad.
— Sara N (@SaraNajmaii) March 14, 2026
Remember, Bolton’s entire mission in life was to attack Iran and overthrow the government.
💢 REPORT: Drone strike disrupts UAE oil hub after U.S. hit Iran’s Kharg Island, Tehran warns ports hosting U.S. forces
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 14, 2026
Some oil-loading operations were suspended at Fujairah, a major UAE crude export hub outside the Strait of Hormuz, after a drone interception this morning… https://t.co/7akor5ELba pic.twitter.com/We9ACAEEGQ
FLBear5630 said:Wangchung said:303Bear said:Wangchung said:Oldbear83 said:
Tone matters, and yours is obvious even in print.
Exactly. We are absolutely controlling 99% of the war but a few US planes on the ground get hit on the ground and it's multiple posts on the empty planes and " well boys, Trump is ignoring his advisors and it's been almost a week so this war is a quagmire!!!" Same mentality of the ********s on game threads that give up in the first 5 minutes of the game.
Depends on what your baseline of support for the operation and acceptable losses are.
If you think (as I do) that this entire operation was largely unnecessary, has been poorly planned from a strategic standpoint (it still is t clear what the actual goal is/was or how it could be achieved) and has been a mixed bag of success and embarrassment (regardless of overall tactical win/advantage, suffering daily strikes on US assets though the region isn't a great look).
So far we have lost 6 tankers (around 1% of our total fleet), a small total number to be sure, but more than I believe we have lost in a conflict at any point. The KC135s are all aged and likely cannot be replaced. The KC46 program has been costly, perpetually behind and beset with teething issues. Losing 3 F15s in a day to friendly fire isn't good. We have spent how ever many billions on munitions, fuel, equipment, plus the increase cost of energy and hit to the markets/economy. Compared toy baseline of "none of these things needed to happen at this moment in time", I think it is very fair to say that we are not succeeding. We may be winning, in the literal military sense, but we are not succeeding.
We're about to put boots on Iranian soil. They won't be the only or the last, and based on past experience, they will likely be there a while.
That's very true, all the zero sum people will be upset at and magnify every single loss, no matter how small, no matter how dominant we are being. People who look at this war as a war between two sides clearly see the bias is absolutely in control like a ln adult trying to control a wild toddler.
I don't like that we are at war, but I'm not going to say "because I don't know the plan personally I'm going to claim there IS no plan and every empty helipad that gets struck Ill use as vindication for my opinion!"
Zero sum isn't realistic, it's biased. It's not an opinion to be respected when judging the progress of a war.
As the leader of the US, Trump's team has to set what the conditions existed to require this use of force, what are we doing and what is the objective. ESPECIALLY, since he ran on a non-war platform and said that his opponents would get us in war with Iran. He made fun of Harris as going to do exactly what he is doing. He has to tell Congress (details) and American people why we are there.
You guys say it is an anti-Trump thing, it isn't. It is a Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran thing.
So far when questioned, Trump's DoD has complained that they shouldn't be asking or like you say "you don't need to know". That is not how the US works. He has to show an exit strategy.
We can win every engagement and lose the war. Geez, sounds like Viet Nam. This is not about tactics, US military will win their engagements and achieve their objectives, no doubt. Can the leadership get a victory? It will not be bombs that get it.
So, you don't need to know the details of every plan. But if he put Marines on Kharg Island, he better tell the American people why, what the mission is and how long we will be there. There does not seem to be a long term plan or that this was thought out.
I'm still waiting for the Iranian people to rise up. If that happens successfully, Trump is a hero and changes the world greatly. If they don't rise up, there's a hundred different scenarios-all bad.
Charlie Kirk was completely against this. Shame on you for what you are doing to his true beliefs, wishes and his legacy. 🤬👇 https://t.co/UGWVrVZ9r6
— Conservative Girl (@ConservativeG99) March 14, 2026
boognish_bear said:Charlie Kirk was completely against this. Shame on you for what you are doing to his true beliefs, wishes and his legacy. 🤬👇 https://t.co/UGWVrVZ9r6
— Conservative Girl (@ConservativeG99) March 14, 2026
We don't live in a vacuum. When things change that are out of our control, we have to pick and choose what direction we support.
Me talking about how I should have purchased a stock at $2 doesn't that is now $35 doesn't make me an investment guru. It means I need to reassess from the current point.
The_barBEARian said:Oldbear83 said:
You certainly are unaware of your rude and insulting behavior here.
I'm aware and its something I am trying to be better about.
I dont enjoy being rude to or insulting other posters but no one gets insulted and attacked more than I do.
I'll continue to try to rise above the hate and not respond in kind.
Thanks barBEARian, I think we all would do well to pay attention to our tone.
I was watching the TCU-ASU baseball game last night, and despite doing a good job the umpires were catching unhappy noise from the ASU fans. I appreciated that the crew stayed above the fray even when player moods got chippy.
Good idea to apply that standard here. There are people you won't convince no matter your argument, and there are some here who show up just to raise the temperature. Better to make our points and seek out the reasonable few.
Life comes at you fast https://t.co/COejXLXaZk pic.twitter.com/jNPAoiWCx4
— ChrisO_wiki (@ChrisO_wiki) March 14, 2026
Feels like temps are rising across the globe
Serbia prepares for war
— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) March 14, 2026
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić stated that Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo are allegedly preparing to attack Serbia.
According to him, these countries "are waiting for an escalation of the conflict between Russia and Europe" and hope that global chaos… pic.twitter.com/mZAD2zG8sX
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 The biggest military operation since Iraq was planned by five people...
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 14, 2026
Only a handful of officials were reportedly looped into the planning for Operation Epic Fury: Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, and Gen. Caine.
That's it.
Senior diplomats who manage Middle East affairs were… https://t.co/dS5UNDe49y pic.twitter.com/gvOoX2j42F
The biggest military operation since Iraq was planned by five people...
Only a handful of officials were reportedly looped into the planning for Operation Epic Fury: Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, and Gen. Caine.
That's it.
Senior diplomats who manage Middle East affairs were told nothing.
They found out the bombing had started from social media and news reports.
The State Department didn't urge Americans to leave the region until after the war began, by which point commercial airspace was already closed and tens of thousands of Americans were stranded.
Nobody planned how to evacuate U.S. citizens.
Nobody solved for who would lead Iran after the strikes.
Nobody had a strategy for reopening Hormuz if Iran closed it.
And the officials who could have raised those questions were deliberately kept out of the room.
The administration says the small circle was "by design" to allow fast decisions and prevent leaks.
But speed and secrecy aren't the same as planning.
The Iraq War had months of deliberation across dozens of agencies and it still went sideways.
This operation just had a group chat and a gut feeling.
Source: WSJ