US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

[_Arabia_]

As many crayons as Saudis need allies to help fight their wars.

It is not a Saudi Arabian war but have you not noticed that every single enemy of KSA (historically) now belongs in the dustbin of history? Look at the long list in the past 100 years alone. Coincidence? It is almost as if some higher power is telling someone something. My guess is that the Iranian regime will soon reach that dustbin as well.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What are the chances of the US and Israel using tactical nukes on Iran? What is the threshold?

Either the Iranian regime, already severely weakened, will capitulate or be forced to reform in a way that will suit the US and Israel (another Venezuela scenario) or the US and Israel will have to launch new attacks against Iran every 6-12 months to ensure that they will never possess nuclear weapons.

If the Israelis go full retard, which they are perfectly capable of, it will only require striking the Bushehr nuclear power plant (now that almost all if not all Russian experts have left) to contaminate large parts of Southern Iran for many years to come.

They have opened a bit of a pandora box here because if the Iranian regime, which is retarded in nature, has not learned anything from this new attack on them, in other words if they do not race to acquire nuclear weapons, they will be at the constant mercy of the US and Israel.

US mainland is completely safe and will remain that. Israel is barely touched either - not anywhere close to anything existential. So they can easily afford a third, fourth or even a fifth round in the not so distant future. Not sure the Iranian regime can afford such a thing given the destruction that they have endured already.

So in a way all parties have somehow forced themselves into a corner.

In any way you look at it, Iran is screwed (already the case) and sadly the Iranian people will be the main victims as they have been since 1979.

Israel and the US also have differing goals IMO. Israel wants a permanently failed state (Iran), preferably ruled by the same incompetent Mullah's. One less regional competitor, potentially. The US on the other hand would want Iran to become a vassal state like under the Shah that they (US firms and US state) can earn billions from.

The Abu Dhabi regime in action:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Maybe they should have thought about that before sending their firecrackers towards the UAE.

More so, what prevents the UAE from rounding up some of those 500.000 Iranians and putting them in all key strategic areas of UAE and say to the Iranian regime that they are free to attack those areas but if they do, 1000's of their own will die? I would have done that a long time ago.

 

[F-22Raptor]

So why else did the US enter this war ? What have we gotten out of it ? The only winners I see so far are Netanyahu, MBS and Putin, who are all experts at playing Trump.

1. Destruction of Iranian ballistic missile capability and its industrial facilities
2. Destruction of the Iranian Navy.
3. Destroy their nuclear facilities and ability to build a nuclear weapon
4. Destroy their ability to support its proxies and project power throughout the region

The US is succeeding in all of these objectives. 70% of Iranian missile/drone/naval production facilities have been destroyed. Cost of inaction would have seen a 2030 nuclear armed Iran shielded by 10,000+ ballistic missiles.

 

[sambody]

1. Destruction of Iranian ballistic missile capability and its industrial facilities
2. Destruction of the Iranian Navy.
3. Destroy their nuclear facilities and ability to build a nuclear weapon
4. Destroy their ability to support its proxies and project power throughout the region

The US is succeeding in all of these objectives. 70% of Iranian missile/drone/naval production facilities have been destroyed. Cost of inaction would have seen a 2030 nuclear armed Iran shielded by 10,000+ ballistic missiles.

One has to be a special kind of stupid to believe such propaganda . Even the MAGA members in Trump's cabinet don't believe it. Iran was not and was never going to be a threat to the homeland. This war is about securing Israeli military dominance in the Middle East and uncontested leadership of the Muslim world by the al Saud family. America did not really have a dog in this fight. American security interests had already been secured by the JCPOA, but Trump tore that up.

Now there is no exit strategy that doesn't end in humiliation and irreperable loss of American power and prestige in the region. Of course, the GOP will have to pay the political price in the mid-terms.

 

[j_hungary]

Maintaining constant supply to a ground operation would mean a massing of men and material in allied gulf states. A bridge head would be risky considering drone and missile strikes and would end up with a very large amount of casualties.

Not just men and material. But also Tempo.

If the US starts seizing islands in Iran, that would change the war for the Americans from an offensive posture to a defensive posture. While there is nothing changed in the strategic level. That's one of the main reasons why Russia failed to conquer Ukraine at the beginning, because they started to get dug into battle like Mariupol and Kherson.

 

[F-22Raptor]

One has to be a special kind of stupid to believe such propaganda . Even the MAGA members in Trump's cabinet don't believe it. Iran was not and was never going to be a threat to the homeland. This war is about securing Israeli military dominance in the Middle East and uncontested leadership of the Muslim world by the al Saud family. America did not really have a dog in this fight. American security interests had already been secured by the JCPOA, but Trump tore that up.

Now there is no exit strategy that doesn't end in humiliation and irreperable loss of American power and prestige in the region. Of course, the GOP will have to pay the political price in the mid-terms.

Iran has been a major threat for decades and the cost of inaction would have lead to an Iranian terror state dominating the ME with significant nuclear and missile capabilities.

But that’s over now for at least a decade+. The only one humiliated here are the Iranian regime and its supporters. Half its regime is dead, the other half hiding in holes. Its military and industrial facilities are destroyed, and its economy is wrecked. Meanwhile, Americans are only paying an extra $20 at the gas pump.

The Iranian regime may “survive” but its military, economy, and industry’s are effectively destroyed. An the Iranian regimes only claim to legitimacy is through threat of murder.

 

[F-22Raptor]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So much Iranian winning

 

[F-22Raptor]

Not just men and material. But also Tempo.

If the US starts seizing islands in Iran, that would change the war for the Americans from an offensive posture to a defensive posture. While there is nothing changed in the strategic level. That's one of the main reasons why Russia failed to conquer Ukraine at the beginning, because they started to get dug into battle like Mariupol and Kherson.

Seizure of coastal sites would have the strategic effect of opening the Strait and destroying what little leverage the Iranians have left. With their ballistic missile industry in rubble, their stockpile is now a finite capability.

The Iranians don’t have many cards left to play.

 

[KAL-EL]

Okay so the US perspective right? Not like the main thread?

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

Seizure of coastal sites would have the strategic effect of opening the Strait and destroying what little leverage the Iranians have left. With their ballistic missile industry in rubble, their stockpile is now a finite capability.

The Iranians don’t have many cards left to play.

Welcome to Zionist (Trump) colonist 21th empire

 

[j_hungary]

Seizure of coastal sites would have the strategic effect of opening the Strait and destroying what little leverage the Iranians have left. With their ballistic missile industry in rubble, their stockpile is now a finite capability.

The Iranians don’t have many cards left to play.

explain to me how seizing Island close to Iran can open the strait?

The strait was closed not because Iran sent its Navy and mined the strait, but they were closed because Iran threatened the ships in the area and hiked up their insurance premium. Even tho of the 28-day war, there are only 21 ships struck (as of 25 March)



Can you stop the Iranian USV from launching off their 31-mile coastline up until the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz by capture those islands? Can you stop Iran from launching a drone to attack the shipping in Hormuz and the Persian Gulf with those islands?

I have studied the military situation in the area closely, and I don't think you can.

In fact, Trump recently announced that the insurance policy they are offering probably works better than trying to seize any Island.

MSN

 

[F-22Raptor]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[F-22Raptor]

explain to me how seizing Island close to Iran can open the strait?

The strait was closed not because Iran sent its Navy and mined the strait, but they were closed because Iran threatened the ships in the area and hiked up their insurance premium. Even tho of the 28-day war, there are only 21 ships struck (as of 25 March)

View attachment 188990

Can you stop the Iranian USV from launching off their 31-mile coastline up until the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz by capture those islands? Can you stop Iran from launching a drone to attack the shipping in Hormuz and the Persian Gulf with those islands?

I have studied the military situation in the area closely, and I don't think you can.

In fact, Trump recently announced that the insurance policy they are offering probably works better than trying to seize any Island.

MSN

No, you can’t stop 100% of attacks, but you can degrade their ability to the point where crossing the Strait becomes an acceptable risk.

Also seizure of Kharg Island knocks out 90% of Iranian oil exports. The goal is to gain so much leverage over Iran they’re forced to concede to US/Israeli demands.

 

[mythbuster]

Seizure of coastal sites would have the strategic effect of opening the Strait and destroying what little leverage the Iranians have left. With their ballistic missile industry in rubble, their stockpile is now a finite capability.

The Iranians don’t have many cards left to play.

Straits of Hormuz is easier to capture but costly to hold , you will need about 20000 troops..... Iranians will have a static target to rain down their missiles on , however , kharg island is difficult to capture and has less strategic value......btw , I agree with you that nuclear armed Iran with thousands of ballistic missiles would be a disaster for region ...that said Iran was willing to compromise on nuclear issue but not on missiles.... you want to completely defang Iran which is not desirable , there shall be some balance of power in the region...
You can't destroy the country at your whim and to the benefit of Israel.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Straits of Hormuz is easier to capture but costly to hold , you will need about 20000 troops..... Iranians will have a static target to rain down their missiles on , however , kharg island is difficult to capture and has less strategic value......btw , I agree with you that nuclear armed Iran with thousands of ballistic missiles would be a disaster for region ...that said Iran was willing to compromise on nuclear issue but not on missiles.... you want to completely defang Iran which is not desirable , there shall be some balance of power in the region...
You can't destroy the country at your whim and to the benefit of Israel.

Static targets may be so, but the US can also bring forward its own tube and rocket artillery, and a huge amount of CAS since these are coastal regions.

 

[j_hungary]

No, you can’t stop 100% of attacks, but you can degrade their ability to the point where crossing the Strait becomes an acceptable risk.

Also seizure of Kharg Island knocks out 90% of Iranian oil exports. The goal is to gain so much leverage over Iran they’re forced to concede to US/Israeli demands.

If you can't stop 100% of attacks, then that means it's pointless. Again, it's not the attack, it's the threat of attack that is closing the strait, and you just admit you can't stop their attack 100% regardless of how you degrade their offensive capability.

And as I said before, if you want to hold Iranian oil production hostage (which frankly is the only things going out of the strait now which mean if we actually did it, it will make the oil sitaution worse, not better) all you need to do is to threaten to bomb it, you don't need to invade it to hold it hostage, unless you want to take it over and ship it yourself, which you will then need the strait to open.