Economic Impacts of Iran War
#651
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 307
Likes: 37
From: A330 FO
Our fundamentalists just use a Ryder rental truck filled with ammonium nitrate or walk around the Michigan Capitol with locked and loaded AR15’s over a blue mask. Some are still preparing for civil war over it.
#652
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
That’s not Christian fundamentalism. You can whataboutism all you’d like, it doesn’t change the fact that globally most terrorists are Islamic extremists by a wide margin. And all of those are fundamentalists.
#653
But that doesn't change the reality on the ground in regards to this war. Clearly the White House believed that a few weeks of intense bombing would drive the Iranian regime to collapse. Equally clear is the undeniable fact that Iran 1) currently controls the SoH, and 2) still possesses the capability to do serious damage to the energy infrastructure of the Middle East.
The regime cares about one thing only: its survival. This is a regime that sacrificed countless child soldiers in a decade-long war with Iraq. A regime that happily murdered tens of thousands of protesters just a few months ago. They have nothing to lose. They have no reason to back down. We could indeed destroy their power grid and desalinization plants, and they'd still hunker down, while escalating their own attacks on the Gulf energy infrastructure.
Never in human history has an aerial war alone resulted in the destruction of a regime. The only ways to actually destroy the current Iranian government would be a full scale ground invasion (and a quagmire that would make Iraq look pleasant), or we launch a nuclear first strike, with the very real possibility of igniting World War 3.
Every American president since 1979 has understood this. Except, it would appear, for the current one.
#654
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 788
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Little problem there.
They have actually offered/threatened to deal with IR in the past. The US prefers that, as hot it as it is over there, that the temperature remains below Five Million Celsius.
I don't know what trumps motive to do this was, and my guesses would not be charitable, but it is at least possible that IL felt existentially froggy and was threatening to take matters into their own hands. If that turns out to be the case, then trump did the right thing. Better some prime-time CSAR drama and an oil price spike, than nukes popping off.
The nuclear genie isn't sealed in his bottle, but he's kind of hiding in the neck. Once he gets out again, we'll probably be in a new era for geopolitics and security. There many different ways that could go down, but I suspect most of them are bad (compared to the current status quo).
They have actually offered/threatened to deal with IR in the past. The US prefers that, as hot it as it is over there, that the temperature remains below Five Million Celsius.
I don't know what trumps motive to do this was, and my guesses would not be charitable, but it is at least possible that IL felt existentially froggy and was threatening to take matters into their own hands. If that turns out to be the case, then trump did the right thing. Better some prime-time CSAR drama and an oil price spike, than nukes popping off.
The nuclear genie isn't sealed in his bottle, but he's kind of hiding in the neck. Once he gets out again, we'll probably be in a new era for geopolitics and security. There many different ways that could go down, but I suspect most of them are bad (compared to the current status quo).
#655
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
Sure. I'll generally agree with you on that.
But that doesn't change the reality on the ground in regards to this war. Clearly the White House believed that a few weeks of intense bombing would drive the Iranian regime to collapse. Equally clear is the undeniable fact that Iran 1) currently controls the SoH, and 2) still possesses the capability to do serious damage to the energy infrastructure of the Middle East.
The regime cares about one thing only: its survival. This is a regime that sacrificed countless child soldiers in a decade-long war with Iraq. A regime that happily murdered tens of thousands of protesters just a few months ago. They have nothing to lose. They have no reason to back down. We could indeed destroy their power grid and desalinization plants, and they'd still hunker down, while escalating their own attacks on the Gulf energy infrastructure.
Never in human history has an aerial war alone resulted in the destruction of a regime. The only ways to actually destroy the current Iranian government would be a full scale ground invasion (and a quagmire that would make Iraq look pleasant), or we launch a nuclear first strike, with the very real possibility of igniting World War 3.
Every American president since 1979 has understood this. Except, it would appear, for the current one.
But that doesn't change the reality on the ground in regards to this war. Clearly the White House believed that a few weeks of intense bombing would drive the Iranian regime to collapse. Equally clear is the undeniable fact that Iran 1) currently controls the SoH, and 2) still possesses the capability to do serious damage to the energy infrastructure of the Middle East.
The regime cares about one thing only: its survival. This is a regime that sacrificed countless child soldiers in a decade-long war with Iraq. A regime that happily murdered tens of thousands of protesters just a few months ago. They have nothing to lose. They have no reason to back down. We could indeed destroy their power grid and desalinization plants, and they'd still hunker down, while escalating their own attacks on the Gulf energy infrastructure.
Never in human history has an aerial war alone resulted in the destruction of a regime. The only ways to actually destroy the current Iranian government would be a full scale ground invasion (and a quagmire that would make Iraq look pleasant), or we launch a nuclear first strike, with the very real possibility of igniting World War 3.
Every American president since 1979 has understood this. Except, it would appear, for the current one.
But I also think that it is naive to think that this wasn’t going to happen eventually. About all you can do is make them Gaza every few decades to slow their progress. The regime has too iron of a grip on their country for a popular uprising and the mullahs would never give up their nuclear ambitions.
#656
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 286
Likes: 187
Israeli pop is 9.5m. By comparison, Cuba is 10, the Tar Heel state 11. After Iran, dealing with the West Bank and what’s left of Lebanon poses the more immediate concern if their recent moves foretell coming attractions. Hitler occupied Odessa. Plowing ahead to the Volga in winter ultimately cost them everything. IDF leadership isn’t crazy.
Little problem there.
They have actually offered/threatened to deal with IR in the past. The US prefers that, as hot it as it is over there, that the temperature remains below Five Million Celsius.
I don't know what trumps motive to do this was, and my guesses would not be charitable, but it is at least possible that IL felt existentially froggy and was threatening to take matters into their own hands. If that turns out to be the case, then trump did the right thing. Better some prime-time CSAR drama and an oil price spike, than nukes popping off.
The nuclear genie isn't sealed in his bottle, but he's kind of hiding in the neck. Once he gets out again, we'll probably be in a new era for geopolitics and security. There many different ways that could go down, but I suspect most of them are bad (compared to the current status quo).
They have actually offered/threatened to deal with IR in the past. The US prefers that, as hot it as it is over there, that the temperature remains below Five Million Celsius.
I don't know what trumps motive to do this was, and my guesses would not be charitable, but it is at least possible that IL felt existentially froggy and was threatening to take matters into their own hands. If that turns out to be the case, then trump did the right thing. Better some prime-time CSAR drama and an oil price spike, than nukes popping off.
The nuclear genie isn't sealed in his bottle, but he's kind of hiding in the neck. Once he gets out again, we'll probably be in a new era for geopolitics and security. There many different ways that could go down, but I suspect most of them are bad (compared to the current status quo).
But yet they were the highest in recent history under Biden and the so called "Inflation Reduction act" did nothing to to decrease or slow it. As a matter of fact Biden did not do a thing to try to battle inflation except to lie to our faces and call it "Transitory". But yet the current administration was able to bring it under control rather quickly. But I am sure you will say they had nothing to do with it, would have happened any way, blah blah blah
#657
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,488
Likes: 137
#659
Brother, he took the time to write out a thoughtful and eloquent analysis with lots of good examples and you called it a wall of text and then him a name. Now straw man stuff. There will be disagreements, but we can debate better than that.
#660
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 788
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
It's not "blackmail" (unless they have really compromising pics of somebody). It would simply be IL stating that they have reached the point where they need to do XYZ. While offering an alternative to XYZ, if the US helps out. That's communication and negotiation, not blackmail.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



