US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

[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

B-1s have departed the UK

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

I dunno man, we keep hearing about how hard an invasion of Iran would be, US took over Iraq quickly, it just lost the occupation.

Much of Iran is flat desert to the south, exactly the area US needs to secure. You dont have to send tanks all the way to Tehran.

Seize the southern coastline and Hormuz islands. That severs any leverage Iran had and their economic lifeline. Target all Iranian leaders who continue to resist.

Feels like Trump is leaving so much on the table in the hopes of some deal. It’s why we’re in this indefinite limbo.

In my opinion, if the US were ever to establish and hold territory inside Iran, even a relatively small area could have significant strategic implications.

History has shown that long-term military bases in conflict zones can shape the course and duration of a conflict. The United States' use of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for nearly two decades, along with its continued military presence at certain facilities in Syria, illustrates how such bases can provide enduring logistical, intelligence, surveillance, and operational support.

If a similar foothold were ever established inside Iran, it could place sustained strategic pressure on Tehran over an extended period. That said, every conflict is unique, and whether such a position could be established or maintained would depend on a wide range of political, legal, and military factors.

Any sustained conflict fought on Iranian territory would inevitably impose far greater economic, military, and humanitarian costs on Iran itself than a conflict fought beyond its borders.

This reflects a broader strategic concept often associated with President George W. Bush's post-11 September approach, encapsulated in the phrase: "We fight them over there so we do not have to face them here."

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Out of curiosity is American naval forces attacking civilians tankers from all around the world as well…unless I’m mistaken they did kill 3 Indian citizens and didn’t even apologize for their death

They're just Indians. Who in the world would think of apologising to them?

 

[Yasser76]

In my opinion, if a foreign power were ever to establish and hold territory inside Iran, even a relatively small area could have significant strategic implications.

History has shown that long-term military bases in conflict zones can shape the course and duration of a conflict. The United States' use of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for nearly two decades, along with its continued military presence at certain facilities in Syria, illustrates how such bases can provide enduring logistical, intelligence, surveillance, and operational support.

If a similar foothold were ever established inside Iran, it could place sustained strategic pressure on Tehran over an extended period. That said, every conflict is unique, and whether such a position could be established or maintained would depend on a wide range of political, legal, and military factors.

Any sustained conflict fought on Iranian territory would inevitably impose far greater economic, military, and humanitarian costs on Iran itself than a conflict fought beyond its borders.

This reflects a broader strategic concept often associated with President George W. Bush's post-11 September approach, encapsulated in the phrase: "We fight them over there so we do not have to face them here."

Much depends on the land. If it by the coast and all desert any US beachhead may be very difficult to attack as US has complete air dominance. US could even use it as a bargining chip

 

[Pak Defender]

As this is an open forum, there should be a general discussion thread for the Iran–USA war. The current one is controlled by an Iranian or pro-Iranian moderators who ban anyone with a different opinion.

 

[Yasser76]

As this is an open forum, there should be a general discussion thread for the Iran–USA war. The current one is controlled by an Iranian or pro-Iranian moderators who ban anyone with a different opinion.

Mate, they jump up and down when bad things happen to Americans or Arabs, when the boot is on the other foot look at the meltdowns they have from a few dislike emojis....

If it was not for Pakistani mods on here can you imagine what it would be like?

 

[Pak Defender]

Mate, they jump up and down when bad things happen to Americans or Arabs, when the boot is on the other foot look at the meltdowns they have from a few dislike emojis....

If it was not for Pakistani mods on here can you imagine what it would be like?

I don't mind moderators enforcing the rules, but moderation should be consistent and impartial. If this is meant to be an open discussion forum, people should be able to express different viewpoints respectfully without worrying that they'll be treated differently based on which side they're on.

 

[Yasser76]

I don't mind moderators enforcing the rules, but moderation should be consistent and impartial. If this is meant to be an open discussion forum, people should be able to express different viewpoints respectfully without worrying that they'll be treated differently based on which side they're on.

Yeah, it was OK for most of the time but last week or so they really lost it

 

[Pak Defender]

Yeah, it was OK for most of the time but last week or so they really lost it

Yeah, I noticed that too.

 

[F-22Raptor]

As this is an open forum, there should be a general discussion thread for the Iran–USA war. The current one is controlled by an Iranian or pro-Iranian moderators who ban anyone with a different opinion.

I was banned from that thread in January when I said the Iranian regime were murdering innocent Iranians in the street. I was laughed at and called a liar. This was before all the dead Iranian videos came out, and the number of dead rose into the tens of thousands.

 

[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

 

[Davey Crockett]

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

 

[ghazi52]

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

 

[ghazi52]

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

 

[ghazi52]

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