Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Economic Impacts of Iran War >

Economic Impacts of Iran War


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Economic Impacts of Iran War

Old 04-22-2026 | 05:04 AM
  #1211  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2026
Posts: 217
Likes: 218
Default

Originally Posted by MaxQ
It has been forgotten that at the beginning of the war, Feb. 28th, preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon was not one of stated reasons for attacking Iran.
That reason only was resurected days later.
Initially it was:
1.To kill their leaders.
2. To destroy their military capability.
3. Be a catalyst for a successful uprising of the population.

Then what? There was never anything presented as to "then what do we do?"

The elimination of Iran's ability to make a a nuke only was added a few days later. After "unconditional surrenderr" no longer looked like it was eassy-peasy.

Donkeys following the road first traveled by Croesus.
Negative. This is blatant misinformation and rewriting of history to fit a narrative.

At the start of the conflict, notice the third bullet:

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the strikes in an eight-minute video posted to Truth Social shortly after operations began. He framed the action as major combat operations with these core justifications:

- To defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, described as a "vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

- Iran's "menacing activities" directly endangered the U.S., U.S. troops, bases overseas, and allies.

- Preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon — Trump reiterated that Tehran "can never have a nuclear weapon" and accused the regime of rejecting opportunities to renounce nuclear ambitions while rebuilding its program and developing long-range missiles.

- Broader historical grievances: For 47 years, Iran had chanted "Death to America," supported terrorism and proxies, waged campaigns of bloodshed, and targeted the U.S. and others (referencing events like the 1979-1981 hostage crisis).
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 05:49 AM
  #1212  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2023
Posts: 491
Likes: 289
Default

Originally Posted by AAdvocate
Negative. This is blatant misinformation and rewriting of history to fit a narrative.

At the start of the conflict, notice the third bullet:

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the strikes in an eight-minute video posted to Truth Social shortly after operations began. He framed the action as major combat operations with these core justifications:

- To defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, described as a "vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

- Iran's "menacing activities" directly endangered the U.S., U.S. troops, bases overseas, and allies.

- Preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon — Trump reiterated that Tehran "can never have a nuclear weapon" and accused the regime of rejecting opportunities to renounce nuclear ambitions while rebuilding its program and developing long-range missiles.

- Broader historical grievances: For 47 years, Iran had chanted "Death to America," supported terrorism and proxies, waged campaigns of bloodshed, and targeted the U.S. and others (referencing events like the 1979-1981 hostage crisis).
Dude…Bibi has literally been telling the world that Iran is “two weeks away” from a nuke for the last twenty years. When the dust finally settles on this one, it won’t be long until we hear the same argument the next time the Israelis want to drop bombs on Iran. How many times do you need to hear the same worn out argument before you realize you’ve been duped by the boy who cried wolf?

Have the Iranians been actively attempting to develop nukes? Of course they have? Have they been two weeks away from that capability for the last twenty years? Almost certainly not. Are there far less disruptive ways to address the problem? Of course there are, but they’re less likely to result in the lavished praise Netanyahu and Trump so desperately seek. This whole thing is about egos.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 05:58 AM
  #1213  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,488
Likes: 137
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
They could of course purchase them from North Korea, Pakistan or even Russia. Those nations never before would have considered a sale. Things are different now. They might even be viewed as the good guys in providing nucs to Iran to protect it from the US who currently is viewed worldwide about the same as Germany in 1940. We have radically destabilized the Middle East. We have also left ourselves dangerously exposed to additional conflicts as we have expended far more weapons than the Pentagon planned or even considered using. JASSM’s available worldwide are down to 425 from 2300 prewar. We have used between 850 and 950 cruise missiles. We procure less than 100 per year.
To cut & run now translates concession. An outcome the enemy hasn’t earned. Seemingly undeterred by the last trimming, confident they know us better than we them. Our leader climbed to power on bold risk taking and deal bluster. Also has a piece of an ear missing. But neither fuehrer nor savior. Denies having ever lost an election. Dismiss any chance of US admitting failure here.

Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 06:50 AM
  #1214  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
Default

Originally Posted by Extenda
The only talk about Iran during the run up to the 2024 election was “the other side WILL start a war in Iran”. The side that was making that accusation won, and then started a war in Iran.

Honest question (because I appreciate your perspective though it differs from mine)

Had the election turned out differently, and the other candidate done this exact same thing, under the exact same justifications, would your opinion be “well, I didn’t vote for her, but she’s right in this case” before arguing the same justifications for the conflict that you have been doing here on APC?

I’m comfortable saying my opinion on this adventure would be the exact same: “This seems like an ill thought out idea with huge potential negative ramifications, and I wish we hadn’t done it, but I hope it turns out well”
I would have been happy had any side done this over the last 47 years. Time to close their chapter in history.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 07:06 AM
  #1215  
off weekends (if Reserve)
 
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 1,181
Likes: 113
Default

Yield to Tyranical Theocracy who repeatedly burns our flag and boasts how they can Contamaciously shout and chant "Death to America"?

I certainly welcome and end to the war, and its subsequent benefits to the global economy......

It always used to bother me in my youth during sports how some people who try to get in cheap shots, and if you retaliated it was often you were penalized (the original infraction often unnoticed by officials) but damnmit the MFer never tried it again. Older, wiser and competitions more pressure packed I often tolerated such cheap shots.......but is that right????

I don't really no how I feel at this point. Cognitive dissonance.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 07:11 AM
  #1216  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2023
Posts: 491
Likes: 289
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
I would have been happy had any side done this over the last 47 years. Time to close their chapter in history.
We’ll be mired in the region for a decade or more trying to “close their chapter in history”, we won’t achieve the objective, and the second and third order effects will leave us worse off than when we started. How many times do you need to see this movie to know how it ends? Unbelievable the naïveté of people who should know better, but have decided to go all in on their “team’s” spin machine.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 07:31 AM
  #1217  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
Default

Originally Posted by Lowslung
We’ll be mired in the region for a decade or more trying to “close their chapter in history”, we won’t achieve the objective, and the second and third order effects will leave us worse off than when we started. How many times do you need to see this movie to know how it ends? Unbelievable the naïveté of people who should know better, but have decided to go all in on their “team’s” spin machine.
The alternative is a Nuclear Iran. Unbelievable the naïveté of people who should know better, but have decided to go all in on their “team’s” spin machine. It's funny how that works.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 07:33 AM
  #1218  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,236
Likes: 254
Default

Sounds like right now it’s an Iranian battle between the realists and the true believers. Realists know that once they reach total oil storage capability and start capping wells those oil fields will be permanently degraded - unless they get fracking technology from the Americans. True Believers will take their little speed boat and go out to engage a missile cruiser while saying it is all the will of Allah.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 07:45 AM
  #1219  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,488
Likes: 137
Default

Originally Posted by Lowslung
We’ll be mired in the region for a decade or more trying to “close their chapter in history”, we won’t achieve the objective, and the second and third order effects will leave us worse off than when we started. How many times do you need to see this movie to know how it ends? Unbelievable the naïveté of people who should know better, but have decided to go all in on their “team’s” spin machine.
Sounds like you’re sold on worst case. Our objectives meritless. But are they really? Deny a preeminent state sponsor of Sharia code ICBM/MIRV leverage. Ensure safe passage of vessels on a critical free trade route. Create precedent that nuke ambitions short of existing superpowers capability will inevitably face deterrence at a cost too high to bear. Big picture wise, I’m more than less encouraged, so far, this move CAN payout.
Reply
Old 04-22-2026 | 07:57 AM
  #1220  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 192
Default

Originally Posted by AAdvocate
Negative. This is blatant misinformation and rewriting of history to fit a narrative.

At the start of the conflict, notice the third bullet:

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the strikes in an eight-minute video posted to Truth Social shortly after operations began. He framed the action as major combat operations with these core justifications:

- To defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, described as a "vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

- Iran's "menacing activities" directly endangered the U.S., U.S. troops, bases overseas, and allies.

- Preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon — Trump reiterated that Tehran "can never have a nuclear weapon" and accused the regime of rejecting opportunities to renounce nuclear ambitions while rebuilding its program and developing long-range missiles.

- Broader historical grievances: For 47 years, Iran had chanted "Death to America," supported terrorism and proxies, waged campaigns of bloodshed, and targeted the U.S. and others (referencing events like the 1979-1981 hostage crisis).
I found a transcript from the Twitter type speech by Trump.

You are correct.
What I stated about when Trump first used Iranian nuke development as a justification for starting this war is objectively false.
You rightly called me out on it.
I Am embarrassed and should be less careless when I assert a fact. ( as opposed to conclusions drawn)

Mea Culpa.

Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jungle
Money Talk
3
01-12-2009 07:31 AM
ryan1234
Money Talk
0
12-05-2008 08:27 PM
jungle
Money Talk
1
11-25-2008 03:28 PM
vagabond
Money Talk
0
10-26-2008 08:48 PM
robthree
Regional
13
09-01-2007 03:23 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices