Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

[FUB]

back to business

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

 

[FUB]

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

 

[tsunset]

What gets me thinking they will not invade is why are they bombing bridges and not sending troops immediately? The bridges are right now under repair and will be completely back to service in a few days. Why aren't they bombing the repair teams?

If you intend to cut bridges and routes then invade immediately afterwards instead of giving time to repair them

 

[Watandar]

What gets me thinking they will not invade is why are they bombing bridges and not sending troops immediately? The bridges are right now under repair and will be completely back to service in a few days. Why aren't they bombing the repair teams?

If you intend to cut bridges and routes then invade immediately afterwards instead of giving time to repair them

Once the bridges are repaired the US will bomb them again. It's about pressuring Iran to return to the negotiating table. There isn't any ground invasion happening, at the most some reckless attempts to seize some islands.

 

[Watandar]

Good analysis on a question asked frequently around here....why has the conflict resumed.

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

 

[BananaRepublic]

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

But Iran’s ability to attack hasn’t been diminished, sweetheart!

Only their ability to defend cowardly attacks from the air has been diminished.

This was exactly US’ position in all their wars since the Second World War.

Ability to kill and maim with impunity from the air.

But US still had to beat a cowardly retreat.

 

[Ali_Baba]

We need to give some allowance to the Iranian posters here. Even to the level-headed Persian Gulf Mod. Their country is being attacked and is literally facing an existential threat. Regardless of the mistakes the Iranian leadership made since 1979, they are at a point of no return: Either they survive as a nation-state with sovereignty (and hopefully course correction) or they become another vassal state with even more castastrophic wars to launched on them should they stray from the path.

I am in the minority view on this thread, and It is fair for the Iranians to be emotional with all that they seeing of their country being hurt the way it is but I do think Iran has made the right decision at every point including the MOU and ceasefire(which has settled the debate in Iran itself, and shown the world that the USA is not serious about ending the war at all and it was nothing more than a ruse).

People seem to relate victory to the cost of oil, and not the draw down charts on strategic reserves? The strategic reserves are exactly at the same point as they were at the end of the war before the ceasefire. That energy crash is coming if the Americans don't stop soon.

There is nothing new that the USA has achieved that it could not have done under fire, people refer to being able to refill ammunition stocks and interceptors in the region but we all saw the flight charts of the Americans being able to do that fine under fire from what RescueRanger was posting on logistics movements from the USA to the region.

Iran's decisions has at every point resulted in strategic success. This is the Battle of Hormuz, and I do think from what I see ( and even in light of the very very large CENTCOM buildup of aircraft in region ) that Iran will win the Battle of Hormuz. The criteria for Iran's success in this battle are quite low, ie demonstrate they can sink tankers at will and stop the oil flow. Nothing else. The Americans have a bigger job for what success looks like for them.

Strategically, the USA is losing this war badly, despite its many tactical wins and destruction and it's very very impressive military capabilities. The clock is ticking on the USA and it is not looking good for them.

 

[ShapurII]

What gets me thinking they will not invade is why are they bombing bridges and not sending troops immediately? The bridges are right now under repair and will be completely back to service in a few days. Why aren't they bombing the repair teams?

I'm sure at least one major bridge in Bandar Abbas is not getting repaired at the moment and the responder team is creating an alternative path. That's per official reports in the Iranian media.

The same goes for one of the railway stations that was hit yesterday. They are using buses for transferring people to by pass that part of the railway.

 

[sharreman10]

I am in the minority view on this thread, and It is fair for the Iranians to be emotional with all that they seeing of their country being hurt the way it is but I do think Iran has made the right decision at every point including the MOU and ceasefire(which has settled the debate in Iran, and shown the world that the USA is not serious about ending the war at all and it was nothing more than a ruse). People seem to relate victory to the cost of oil, and not the draw down charts on strategic reserves. The strategic reserves are exactly at the same point as they were at the end of the war before the ceasefire. There is nothing new that the USA has achieved that it could not have done under fire, people refer to being able to refill ammunition stocks and interceptors but we all saw the charts of the Americans being able to do that fine under fire from what RescueRanger was posting on logistics movements.

Iran's decisions has at every point resulted in strategic success. This is the Battle of Hormuz, and I do think from what I see ( and even in light of the very large CENTCOM buildup of aircraft in region ) that Iran will win the Battle of Hormuz. The criteria for Iran's success in this battle are quite low, ie demonstrate they can sink tankers at will and stop the oil flow. Nothing else. The Americans have a bigger job.

This is it.

 

[ShapurII]

The criteria for Iran's success in this battle are quite low, ie demonstrate they can sink tankers at will and stop the oil flow. Nothing else. The Americans have a bigger job.

This is a joke, right? So, if Iran loses all of its power plants and bridges, loses Khuzestan and Bushehr which holds 90% of its energy resources, but continues to sink a few tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has won the war per your definition? lmao

 

[Ali_Baba]

This is a joke, right? So, if Iran loses all of its power plants and bridges, loses Khuzestan and Bushehr which holds 90% of its energy resources, but continues to sink 4-5 tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has won the war per your definition? lmao

I didn't say it would not cost Iran or hurt Iran. This is war, and yes, Iran is taking bigger hits than the region or the USA. What are the political goals and objectives of both sides, and who is closer to meeting them.

The USA will have to come to terms with not having control over the straits, and once that happens, they will need to yield politically to Iran's objectives. There is nothing else left for the Americans after that.

 

[PakistanLVR]

Once the bridges are repaired the US will bomb them again. It's about pressuring Iran to return to the negotiating table. There isn't any ground invasion happening, at the most some reckless attempts to seize some islands.

USAF bombed bridges behind Normandy beaches to make sure the German reinforcements cannot make it to the front lines to fight the beach invasions. It will restrict ground movement of troops to engage potential US landings.

 

[BananaRepublic]

That's the whole point of having a third group. They're passive, they want the best to happen for Iran. The truth is that this is no longer the 18th or 19th century where people's participation or political ideas matter that much.

That means the first group will triumph by default.

 

[sharreman10]

This is a joke, right? So, if Iran loses all of its power plants and bridges, loses Khuzestan and Bushehr which holds 90% of its energy resources, but continues to sink a few tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has won the war per your definition? lmao

This is basically what I was saying to you yesterday. What is the end goal here? Regime change and remove Iranian control of Hormuz. You can't control Hormuz without regime change.

 

[ShapurII]

I didn't say it would not cost Iran or hurt Iran. This is war, and yes, Iran is taking bigger hits than the region or the USA. What are the politicial goals and objectives of both sides, and who is closer to meeting them.

That's the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while.

So, if Iran loses 5 trillion dollars, loses its entire energy resources to the enemy and turns into an inhabitable wasteland because it can no longer sustain life but sinks 2 tankers in the Strait of Hormuz which has limited effect on the global economy, Iran has won the war. OK! lol