Middle East Defence & Security

rsemmes

Active Member
"Why?
If we keep Iran "in the fight", it is going to be harder for Trump to threaten to invade Greenland again.
Correct?
I suppose if you think the sheer unlikelyhood of an invasion of Greenland is somehow more dangerous that a nuclear armed Iran, then by all means, send your money to Iran.

But you wont, so you dont.

Iran has been shit-stirring in the ME so long, it has no friends, only business associates. The sooner the IRGC breaks, the better for all of us here.

But enough on this topic, it belongs in another forum."


Maybe this forum, vikingatespam ?

Pakistan, a Muslin country, has the atomic bomb, also irrelevant to answering my question.
First you reply with just one word: "Wrong". Well, can explain why?

Keeping Ukraine "in the fight" keeps Russia invading the rest of Europe, an argument often repeated.
Keeping Iran "in the fight" will keep the US from invading Greenland, maybe not Cuba, but do we care about Cuba?
It certainly doesn't prevent the US imposing sanctions on European vehicles.

(BTW, hasn't the US "been shit-stirring in the ME so long, it has no friends, only business associates" ? Starting by organizing, together with the British Empire, a coup d'etat that destroyed democracy in Iran, put a dictator in place and then you got the Islamic Revolution. Or you mean Kissinger and his "The US has no friends, only interests"?)
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Lindsay Graham says that the victory in Iran is freedom of navigation in Hormuz and stopping Iran from attacking the Arabs in the Gulf. Things that weren’t a thing just two months ago.


In the meantime, gas prices are up 72% here since things weren’t a thing. Seeding season is literally here as well.
Before the war the oil and gas prices were quite normal AND there was also freedom of navigation...
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Don’t think it would be status quo though. Iran would, as Merz put it, humiliate the Unites States, for one thing.


And there would have to be some kind of deal made that provides Iran with some assurances of nonaggression in return for the same. And so on. I don’t think status quo is on the horizon. Time will tell though because I do not see how the US, and Trump in particular, can agree to anything along those lines. How can they not, on the other hand, though? It’s a pickle.

Franky, I have no interest in paying higher gas prices (and soon for everything else) because of stupidity of a few. It’s been 1.25 years, but feels like a decade and it is still 2.75 to go, unless the guy drops dead. I know people who think it is all worth it though for the brighter future. Laughing.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Don’t think it would be status quo though. Iran would, as Merz put it, humiliate the Unites States, for one thing.


And there would have to be some kind of deal made that provides Iran with some assurances of nonaggression in return for the same. And so on. I don’t think status quo is on the horizon. Time will tell though because I do not see how the US, and Trump in particular, can agree to anything along those lines. How can they not, on the other hand, though? It’s a pickle.

Franky, I have no interest in paying higher gas prices (and soon for everything else) because of stupidity of a few. It’s been 1.25 years, but feels like a decade and it is still 2.75 to go, unless the guy drops dead. I know people who think it is all worth it though for the brighter future. Laughing.
Well, it is really worth it, because the american defence industry will get a brighter future because of this.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Well, it is really worth it, because the american defence industry will get a brighter future because of this.
Maybe but their defence industry enjoys a large export market that helps pay for America's needs. Trump's actions will eventually (IMHO) erode the export market as many pi$$ed off clients will turn to alternative suppliers. Needless to say the alternatives will take some time though. With the US needing to replenish inventory, deliveries for US kit for export will slow. This will be additional incentive for foreign vendors to ramp up investment and production.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
Talking about Merz...

For a year now, Merz has tried to manage Trump through concessions and appeasement.
I think I read "appeasement" before, but just like a missile, it needs "targeting".

NATO, Iran, economy... and everything else.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
ITs been reported the Saudis closed their airspace and evicted American air assets from their territory as pretty to end this.

Trump surprised Gulf allies by announcing “Project Freedom” on social media Sunday afternoon, the officials said, angering leadership in Saudi Arabia. In response, the Kingdom informed the U.S. it would not allow the U.S. military to fly aircraft from Prince Sultan Airbase southeast of Riyadh or fly through Saudi airspace to support the effort, the officials said.

Trump has an upcoming meeting with China. China may start the view the conflict differently if they are continued to be restricted from oil. Certainly it would seem to be now would be a great time to come to a mutual peace deal.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Putting this article here (perhaps the missile thread is another option). the report does illustrate the missile defence issue wrt Iran. The huge cost and re-supply issues are clearly not sustainable, especially the short to medium range weapons used against the Gulf states. Seems to me the $hit option of boots the ground or the even $hittier option is giving Iran what it wants, several WMD delivered by Tridents are possible options. Best option, let China sort the ayatollahs and the Iranian Republican Guard...permanently.

Forgot the link. Inserted below

Six key takeaways about Iran’s missiles, two months into the war - Breaking Defense
 
Last edited:

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
^I am assuming you forgot to leave the link (to an NYT article?)?

Another NYT article also suggests:

Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway.[…]

Iran still fields about 70 percent of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile, according to the assessments. That stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and a smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter-range targets on land or at sea.

Military intelligence agencies have also reported, based on information from multiple collection streams including satellite imagery and other surveillance technologies, that Iran has regained access to roughly 90 percent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities nationwide, which are now assessed to be “partially or fully operational,” the people with knowledge of the assessments said.




The UAE:

IMG_5135.jpeg


Netanyahu (post factum ^):

IMG_5134.jpeg

In addition to the reports that the UAE was bombing Iran.
 
Top