Dick Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" turned out so well for the United States. Let's do it again!

Sequels are never as good as the original.

Another chapter in our multi-decade story of our declining Empire.

I'm not sure what's more sad, watching America fail or realizing of the citizens are too apathetic and uneducated to understand their future is less bright than the generations before them.

Wealth is created, but it also needs to be maintained.

This morning the IEA Chief says it will take at least six months to restore energy flows and that this is the greatest ever threat to the Global energy supply. This is all because of the voluntary bilateral actions of the USA and Israel.

How will our industry cope with this? I don't think the airline executives are being sincere with their recent optimism.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/iran-war-global-oil-crisis-energy-impact-iea-disruption-gulf-supply-threat-2026-middle-east-war-trump-netanyahu-middle-east/amp_articleshow/129700675.cms

Difficult if not impossible to see it any other way. Well said. Cheney & Rumsfeld were sharp, dedicated guys that led us straight into a rathole on false pretext. Dead wrong in the belief Islamic populations were finally prepared to join Western values/culture. So of course, we’re doing it all over.

Work from home, drive slower, avoid gas cooking, and avoid air travel. So tired of winning….

Unfortunately that is true. Some cultures just seem to work better under despot rule. But it doesn't really change much. Eventually, someone was going to have to do what should have been done a long time ago.

That is well within the construct of SOF ops and raids which I've discussed in other threads. If you go in, accomplish something, and get out within a matter of days without taking responsibility for local infrastructure or governance that's not a quagmire.

Even if you hold a small island long-term, that's not a big deal. The people on Kharg are mostly there to support the oil ops.

If you dust off your old books from the war college, you can remind yourself that raids and similar activities are options in the early phases. They don't have to be a prelude to OIF style invasion.

As I keep saying, don't get too wrapped in bOotS oN GRoUnD.

A few Boots touching ground isn't the problem.

A lot of Boots staying on the ground would be a problem, and a very big one WRT to IR (much worse than OIF/OEF). For the US. IL seems to be talking up the need for BoG this week, perhaps they're hoping we'll do that for them?

True and I have always said that after what I saw what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan after we tried to democratize them. However no matter what we can't let those type of rulers sponsor terror with impunity or worse have nuclear weapons. Because once they have them there is really nothing we can do any more, like North Korea.

Jet A up to $4.26/gal

It's mildly OK if fuel prices rise slowly, and in general higher fuel price = better economy, so it's a natural hedge. This is completely different - quick jump in prices, +180% in 30 days. It's also hitting diesel and Jet A harder than regular gasoline.

DPRK has some pretty nasty anti-US propaganda (they really, really have it out for the 7th Infantry Division), but no one in domestic US politics has been chomping at the bit to bomb them into the Stone Age since the Bush years...I wonder if there are any lessons we can draw from that?

Operation Paul Bunyan anyone?

Yes, the lesson is to stop a country like that from having Nuclear weapons before they have them. Once they have them there is jack **** we can do. Under no circumstances should a country send a C-17 with pallets of cash to once of those countries and allow them to continue to develop their nuclear program unimpeded.

Option 3 isn't exactly "full scale invasion or nothing". There are levels of ground involvement that don't require toppling the Iranian gov or occupying Tehran. The MEU, for instance, could be used to conduct amphibious and/or air assault raids against suspected missile/rocket launcher sites and mine laying ops/cells in order to prevent Iranian interdiction of commercial shipping in the straight. Of note, I'm using the Joint DoD definition of raid - which requires that the operation must end in a planned withdrawal.

Nothing like calling your “allies” cowards for refusing to help you with a problem you created. Great team building. This isnt ending anytime soon. Nice…..

Trees - my one true enemy. That and DPRK Army officers.

I'd rather have a President do that then one that placates and folds to their every demand to the detriment of the US interests. Like thinking they had the luxury to reduce spending on their national defense thinking the U.S. would always be there to pick up the slack for them. Clinton, Obama, and especially Biden allowed them to do that.

I don’t think we should force them to have cultures like our own. I said the opposite. Letting them have nuclear weapons, though. Nope.

Yeah, but the argument that I responded to (at least implies) that Iranian access to nuclear weaponry is some sort of imminent, existential threat to the US. I believe the example of North Korea's nuclear program is instructive as to the threat level. Is it ideal that they have nukes from a national security standpoint? Absolutely not. It terribly constrains US actions - both militarily and diplomatically. Has it resulted in levelled, irradiated US or Western cities? No. Could it? A big maybe, that would have to involve two (probably 3, with China) sets of non-rational actors. Maybe you can argue China is the big check on NK...and the US. I'd concede that.

So what does that, coupled with the example of Iran and Iraq, show non-nuclear armed adversarial powers? I'd say it's "get nukes as soon as you can, your regime's survival depends on it". It, coupled with our diplomatic retreat from the world, has the potential to become a game of whack-a-mole that even the USAF and USN can't win. The US military is not a limitless resource.

Anyway, who's talking about C-17s full of pallets of cash here? And how do I get ahold of one? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - JPCOA/sanctions lifting).

Newsflash: Not everyone needs our way of life. Their country, their choice. They don’t need us to bomb them to democracy.

Even the Kim’s are in a different class than Iran. Counting on them not using nukes while killing women for not wearing a hijab is a completely different class of nuttery. I don’t think you can compare apples to IEDs there.

I would disagree that we fight wars to expand democratic governance. It's a nice myth though.

If it was said we fought wars for corporations, oil rights, global hegemony and Zionism perhaps there would be less willing participation?

Heck, it's coded in federal law we don't do business with counties that participate in genocide. America is at best an amoral entity.

"Hey, a guy on the internet had a different opinion about something. I should tell him he's insane."

I was referring to Iran vs DPRK. They’re both crazy. One just is terrorist crazy.

Shelled brown/yellow people in Native territories, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Nam, ME. Hope I didn’t leave anyone out? Ugly business. Probably woulda came out different they had mirvs. Some chances you just can’t afford to take.

Subscribe to race based politics and believe in the Oppressed vs. Oppressor matrix. Then open up a day care center in Minnesota or a Hospice in California. Pallets full of money will come your way.

Don't give a **** if they are a democracy or not. I do give a **** if said country sponsors terror and has programs to develop nuclear weapons. You're arguing with yourself here.

Trump promises "No boots on the ground." You: "Good."
Trump immediately breaks that promise by deploying ground forces with "limited scope." You: "Also good."

Maybe the real TDS is the blind loyalty that permits Trump and others to say anything, do anything, and get away with everything.

Both can be true. No boots on ground to accomplish objectives is amazing. However if troops on ground is needed to accomplish certain objectives then you need to do what you need to do. Obviously nobody wants another Iraq or Afghanistan and if this becomes a long term thing then yes even Trump will lose support from his most arduous supporters.

What are the “certain objectives”? They keep changing…sometimes hourly.

Knock off the insults. I have zero loyalty to Trump or any of his minions (aside from that required by duty to my oath of office).

Sponsors terror and has nukes? The U.S. and Israel would top the list. Facts: Israel has paid cash to Hamas in the past. We give cash to Afghanistan’s Taliban government. Many other examples too.

Then why do you seem to be going into overdrive to defend this?

I thought the nukes were gone/destroyed.

Why are we there now? It’s can’t have anything to do with being a lap dog for Netanyahu or oil, right?

With all due respect, why isn't there the same condemnation for insults lobbed towards those of us who don't support this war. So far I've been called a libtard, TSA, implied I'm antisemitic, said I hate America and support terrorists and even supported the Oct 7 massacre.

I think the objectives will be whatever Trump can get out of this without too high of a cost... political, economic, geopolitical. Doubt he cares about $ cost. So kind of a fishing expedition...

Regime change?

Compliant regime 2.0?

Nuclear program severely degraded?

Proxies cut off from support?

Lower conventional threat to the GCC?

Loss of future ability to interfere with shipping?

Message sent to other Evil Empires (mission accomplished at this point I think).

Kind of like a Chinese menu, he'll take what he can get up until it gets too hot in the kitchen and he has to pack it in.

Been pretty clear to me. If you get your news from the Ladies of The View then yes you would probably think that.

- Desultory Iran's missile base so they can never rebuild
- Destroy their Navy
- Make sure they never have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon

I'm discussing it, not defending anything.

This is kind of like investment strategy. My preference is traditional EFT/Index funds for predictability and stability. As opposed to say private equity startup investment, which has high risk, uncertainty, and potential for high reward.

But if my spouse invested our retirement fund in private equity (which typically has a lengthy lock), I would be analyzing how *that* is going, and future prospects. It might even look bullish at some point. Might as well look forward, because you can't get your money back out until the end regardless.

"This all bad and will only get worse" is just TDS. Stop talking about me, just stick to current events.

Also... "Rise up! Take your country back!"
Also... How do you plan on finding the 400 kilos of enriched Uranium in a country the size of Alaska?

I don't plan on finding anything. I'll leave that up to the experts and fine people in our Military and this Administration to figure it out.

You’re a Navy guy, right Rick? Not asking you to dip into the high side, but what capabilities do we have/need to effectuate that outcome?

I feel like there was probably a big ways/means/ends, forces/capabilities/effects, enemy actions/counters conversation somewhere in a SCIF in Tampa. And it was effectively a field grade circle jerk because this was either somehow overlooked or the pentagon and the admin didn’t care or know to care that it would be a problem.

Either way, huge swing and miss. We entered the conflict on our terms. And the spot price of Jet-A is now $4.26 according to A4A. Gonna be an interesting fall/winter if this keeps up.