Yet another war, this time with Iran

[bilby]

History will note where Spain was as @POTUS and others try to bring down the most bloodthirsty regime since WWII.

Really? When did POTUS attack Putin? I must have missed that news.

 

[scombrid]

During my time in the U.S. Air Force in the mid-80s when I was assigned as a prosecutor in Europe at the height of the Cold War, I was tasked to American air bases in Spain as a part of my legal duties. I have great admiration for the Spanish people and they have been great allies in the past.

However, the current government in Spain is becoming the gold standard of pathetically weak European leadership that has lost its moral way, apparently reluctant to condemn the terrorist regime in Iran and have nothing but criticism for the United States. The Spanish have righteous indignation for Putin’s invasion in Ukraine, as they should. But when it comes to the long suffering people of Iran it appears that Spain is, at best, indifferent. In times like these, you learn the true nature of your allies.

I’m hoping this current Spanish government is an aberration, not the norm. History will note where Spain was as @POTUS and others try to bring down the most bloodthirsty regime since WWII. So sad.

Lady G is an evil sycophant. Period. Can’t get more disingenuous.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is that the same Lindsey Graham who said that electing Trump would destroy the Republican Party and that they would deserve it?

 

[southernhybrid]

I was talking to my neighbor yesterday who has PTSD secondary to the time he spent fighting in the Iraq War. He's a dear, sweet person. He told me that when he was in the military he never thought much about the financial costs, but he does now. Shortly after I got home, I turned on the news and learned that this mess Trump has started is costing the US 1 billion dollars per day. So, if this goes on for a year, that's 365 billion dollars. Hope it doesn't last that long but who knows? The idiot who blames the Dems for too much spending is causing so much chaos and getting us deeper in to dept by the day. Death, destruction and debt!

 

[bilby]

The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East.

That's OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don't need them any longer - But we will remember.

We don't need people that join Wars after we've already won!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dn3j04lydo

So, is this war already won?

How could we tell?

What would victory look like? What are the war aims of the USA?

Israel's aims seem fairly clear - They want an end to the supply of money and arms from Iran to the various organizations that regularly attack Israel; And they want to end the threat of direct attack from Iran.

Those aims are at least comprehensible and rational, even if it's highly debatable whether the current action can be effective in achieving them, particularly in the long term.

But what does the USA want from this war police action special military operation whatever the fuck euphemism we are using to excuse the President from going to war without consulting congress as required by the constitution he has sworn to uphold?

What does victory entail? And what evidence is there that it has been achieved, even in part?

(By the way, the Queen Elizabeth is currently unservicable, so the UK only has one carrier available; Prince of Wales has been placed on 'five days notice to sail', but no decision to send her anywhere has yet been published, and the Royal Navy has an insufficent number of escort vessels to send her into a war zone, unless they go cap in hand to an ally. The recent excercises had French escorts defending the RN carriers. Also, the UK Government have made clear their opposition to military action against Iran, only recently relented on allowing the US to use airbases in Britain, and then only for "defensive" missions, and if they do deploy PoW it will most likely be to defend British sovereign assets in Cyprus and/or Malta, rather than to join in with the US and Israeli attacks on Iran).

 

[bilby]

As we can't call this a war, and "police action" and "special military operation" have been used and are somewhat on-the-nose, perhaps we need a new euphemism.

How about "Coordinated Response to International Military Exigencies"?

 

[SLD]

So today I read that Trump tweeted out that only unconditional surrender would stop the campaign.

That got me wondering. The last time we demanded unconditional surrender as our price to end a war was sometime around 1943 once we had turned back the axis and started on the long road toward conquering Germany, which took another 2 years +.

It also took something like over 120 US, British, Canadian, French nd other allied divisions plus something like 400 Russian divisions. We had to land troops on a hostile shore and drive them back through France, Belgium, parts of the Netherlands and finally over half of Germany and Austria. Our occupying forces stayed afterwards for many years, but at some point simply became part of NATO.

Iran is different mind you. But how many divisions of troops would it take? Especially if you don’t want to have an insurgency arise?

 

[Shadowy Man]

i don’t think it matters what would it take for the US to stop bombing, it’s more like what will it take for Israel to stop.

 

[Politesse]

What terms would we even demand, if Iran accepted unconditional surrender for some inexplicable reason? We have no clearly stated goals in their country.

 

[bilby]

What terms would we even demand, if Iran accepted unconditional surrender for some inexplicable reason? We have no clearly stated goals in their country.

Exactly.

And with whom could we entrust those demands if we had any? Every Iranian who gets into a position where he could, if he wished, order a ceasefire gets killed in short order.

At this point, it seems unlikely that the IRGC forces would stop firing drones even if ordered to do so by Tehran, because they would have no certainty that such orders come from a legitimate ruler or ruling body.

As the unit commanders are fundamentalists, chosen for their beligerence and commitment to the Islamic Revolution, they are likely to regard a ceasefire order as strong evidence that the order is not legitimate.

I don't think anyone can put the lid back on the box at this point, and I see no evidence that either Trump or Netanyahu are particularly concerned about trying.

This has all the makings of a very long war indeed, and one from which the US can withdraw only with serious loss of face, and from which the regional allies of the US (including Israel, but also the various arab nations) cannot withdraw at all.

Iran has form for simply never giving in. Back during the Iran/Iraq war, they were outgunned and outmatched in every way except sheer numbers by the Iraqis, but just refused to quit, even in the face of overwhelming firepower against which they were armed with two rifles for every three soldiers.

And Iranian geography is a defender's dream, and an invader's nightmare.

I took this photograph almost exactly a year ago; It is looking into Iran from above the Iraqi border. The whole damn country looks like this; One impenetrable mountain ridge after another, as far as the eye can see from 40,000 feet.

 

[TV and credit cards]

i don’t think it matters what would it take for the US to stop bombing, it’s more like what will it take for Israel to stop.

Us to stop giving them the bombs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The whole aim was to help nudge Iran shifting towards a non-despotic government organically.

Iran doesn't want the US to save it. Trump tells the Kurds to rise up, the Iranians to rise up and seize the government... oh but the US gets to approve the leader.

Trump also always uses these ridiculous standards in negotiations. Why he fails i. Diplomatic relations because he has much less leverage than he understands. If he understands anything at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What terms would we even demand, if Iran accepted unconditional surrender for some inexplicable reason? We have no clearly stated goals in their country.

Exactly.

And with whom could we entrust those demands if we had any? Every Iranian who gets into a position where he could, if he wished, order a ceasefire gets killed in short order.

At this point, it seems unlikely that the IRGC forces would stop firing drones even if ordered to do so by Tehran, because they would have no certainty that such orders come from a legitimate ruler or ruling body.

As the unit commanders are fundamentalists, chosen for their beligerence and commitment to the Islamic Revolution, they are likely to regard a ceasefire order as strong evidence that the order is not legitimate.

I don't think anyone can put the lid back on the box at this point, and I see no evidence that either Trump or Netanyahu are particularly concerned about trying.

This has all the makings of a very long war indeed, and one from which the US can withdraw only with serious loss of face, and from which the regional allies of the US (including Israel, but also the various arab nations) cannot withdraw at all.

Iran has form for simply never giving in. Back during the Iran/Iraq war, they were outgunned and outmatched in every way except sheer numbers by the Iraqis, but just refused to quit, even in the face of overwhelming firepower against which they were armed with two rifles for every three soldiers.

And Iranian geography is a defender's dream, and an invader's nightmare.

I took this photograph almost exactly a year ago; It is looking into Iran from above the Iraqi border. The whole damn country looks like this; One impenetrable mountain ridge after another, as far as the eye can see from 40,000 feet.

View attachment 53768

If Cyrus could conquer it...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The claims likely will not end up being investigated, even if some Democrats want it to be:

Lawmakers Want DOD, Hegseth Investigated For Biblical 'Armageddon' Claims | Military.com

www.military.com

Here is some skepticism about the story, some of which I agree with, but not all:

Before you share that story about how troops were told the Iran War is for "Armageddon," read this

The narrative is dramatic. The sourcing is thin. And skepticism matters, especially on something this serious.

www.friendlyatheist.com

Some things that are explainable:
(1) Friendly Atheist is skeptical about how they reached out only to MRFF, not other media sources. I have read that there are supporting members of the MRFF who are active duty military. So they may have a connection already with the MRFF that they can trust. If they had instead contacted random persons at mainstream or Democrat-leaning media, you don't immediately get to talk to someone you might trust such as Rachel Maddow or whomever. There are a number of go-betweens and you give your name and explanation. For someone who is already a member of MRFF, this is an easy decision to make.
(2) Friendly Atheist claims that there is consistency in emails across multiple years, possibly pointing to the emails being fabricated by Weinstein. Consistency is not measured, though, and if they are consistently written with a particular style, it doesn't necessarily mean Weinstein is the author. It could be there is a form on their website for such thing or that such member of MRFF is consistently the person sending the emails OR it could be that members of the MRFF have particular methods they employ when writing correspondence to MRFF because the organization promotes a particular style for later legal use and other purposes. The email author(s) may be people who are very strongly in favor of separation of church and state and "activists" and so they email over the years about their observations to the MRFF. Or they may do a copy-paste from one email to the next, changing only certain things. (Personally, I sometimes do a copy-paste with certain correspondence and change up some text).
(3) Friendly Atheist notes that there are a number of emails where there is a single author representing a lot of other soldiers in correspondence. --that this seems to be consistent. Again, I think this could be explained by membership of "activists" in separation of church and state who are members of MRFF and active duty military. So, imagine that there is a speech by a commanding officer talking about Jesus and Armageddon. Such activist is very offended by this and has training on method of communicating back to MRFF, but also on talking to others in the unit who might be prone to also being against the mingling of Christian Nationalism/End Times and military. They can discuss the issue with these people and with their assent add them to a tally of persons before sending the email off to MRFF.

Now just because these things are explainable, it doesn't make them likely. It __could__ __be__ that Weinstein is making the whole thing up.

Even if he were, there is a lot of Christian Nationalism and anti-Islam things going on that do not make the war with Iran look good. Here, for example, is a recent article from Al Jazeera which many in the Middle East may end up reading. While the story about MRFF is included, there is a lot more than just that.

Why are the US and Israel framing the ongoing conflict as a religious war?

US troops reportedly told the war in Iran is intended to bring about biblical end times, Armageddon.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So today I read that Trump tweeted out that only unconditional surrender would stop the campaign.

That got me wondering. The last time we demanded unconditional surrender as our price to end a war was sometime around 1943 once we had turned back the axis and started on the long road toward conquering Germany, which took another 2 years +.

It also took something like over 120 US, British, Canadian, French nd other allied divisions plus something like 400 Russian divisions. We had to land troops on a hostile shore and drive them back through France, Belgium, parts of the Netherlands and finally over half of Germany and Austria. Our occupying forces stayed afterwards for many years, but at some point simply became part of NATO.

Iran is different mind you. But how many divisions of troops would it take? Especially if you don’t want to have an insurgency arise?

These are the core issues IMO. No major insurgencies took place in Germany and Japan because they had been so thoroughly defeated and their civilian populations so decimated that the will to fight on was completely crushed. Thus, in terms of "unconditional surrender" are the American people and the rest of the world willing to indiscriminately burn Iran's population centers to the ground along with the consequent millions of deaths and even more wounded?

I think it's safe to say the U.S. won't wage total war on Iran.

Instead we've created a power vacuum, which will be filled by someone/some group of people. I don't know what that'll look like, but such vacuums attract people like Putin. In this case, it would likely be Putin with fanatical religious beliefs. Or are we just gonna take out leadership until the Persian version of Mr. Rogers takes the reins?

 

[SLD]

So today I read that Trump tweeted out that only unconditional surrender would stop the campaign.

That got me wondering. The last time we demanded unconditional surrender as our price to end a war was sometime around 1943 once we had turned back the axis and started on the long road toward conquering Germany, which took another 2 years +.

It also took something like over 120 US, British, Canadian, French nd other allied divisions plus something like 400 Russian divisions. We had to land troops on a hostile shore and drive them back through France, Belgium, parts of the Netherlands and finally over half of Germany and Austria. Our occupying forces stayed afterwards for many years, but at some point simply became part of NATO.

Iran is different mind you. But how many divisions of troops would it take? Especially if you don’t want to have an insurgency arise?

These are the core issues IMO. No major insurgencies took place in Germany and Japan because they had been so thoroughly defeated and their civilian populations so decimated that the will to fight on was completely crushed. Thus, in terms of "unconditional surrender" are the American people and the rest of the world willing to indiscriminately burn Iran's population centers to the ground along with the consequent millions of deaths and even more wounded?

I think it's safe to say the U.S. won't wage total war on Iran.

Instead we've created a power vacuum, which will be filled by someone/some group of people. I don't know what that'll look like, but such vacuums attract people like Putin. In this case, it would likely be Putin with fanatical religious beliefs. Or are we just gonna take out leadership until the Persian version of Mr. Rogers takes the reins?

Absent ground troops occupying the country, no Mr. Rogers type can take over Iran. The only ones with the power are those with the guns, and that’s the IRGC. The more hard line the better as far as they’re concerned. Anyone else they'd kill. If I were Iran’s leader, I’d actually just bide my time. No need to strike bad except at ships going through the straits of Hormuz. The U.S. defenses are just too strong. Maybe cultivate suicide bombers in the gulf or elsewhere. Asymmetric warfare. All they need to do is blow up one tanker that dared to go through the straits.

Another large issue is China which is actually pledging to provide them with missile technology. Are we going to attack Chinese vessels going to Iran? Seriously? But what if they’re supplying them with weapons and even hypersonic missiles? We can’t stop those just yet. I’m sure China would love to see how well they work.

Iran has a huge amount of options to counter the U.S. we’ve started this war. But we may have taken on far more than we bargained for. And while I would not expect a full fledged confrontation with Russia and China to boot, we may find that we’re fighting them via proxies. Without serious allied support.

Furthermore, we can’t just stop this. It’s not like Trump can say OK, we won, we’re stopping the attacks now. Iran won’t likely stop in such a situation and it could even embolden them further. Maybe they bide their time, but they are likely to seek revenge. And what happens if they’re manage to get a hit on a carrier? I cannot imagine how bad that could be.

No. I really don’t like this. This could be really really bad. Maybe calmer heads will prevail across all parties but I am skeptical.

I’m typing this in a coffee shop and around me; people are chatting about nothing in particular, studying their Bible, playing games. But our whole world could utterly change because of this. We are so used to there being no serious consequences to our elections and foreign policy. The military is a distant relative at most. No one thinks the consequences could fall on them. Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s all I can do not to scream at them.

 

[Patooka]

I think it's safe to say the U.S. won't wage total war on Iran.

Do you honestly believe a single person in this administration gives a flying fuck about the "suckers and losers" in the US military?

 

[laughing dog]

I think it's safe to say the U.S. won't wage total war on Iran.

Do you honestly believe a single person in this administration gives a flying fuck about the "suckers and losers" in the US military?

No. Trump cares about retaining power. That requires a tame Congress. His ratings are low and midterm GOP loses loom. The Iranian war becomes less and less popular with his base with an increase in US body bags.

This war is a gamble to increase his support. He will talk loud but carry a small stick.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it's safe to say the U.S. won't wage total war on Iran.

Do you honestly believe a single person in this administration gives a flying fuck about the "suckers and losers" in the US military?

Not really, but landing troops in Iran isn't exactly easy. Those planes are much bigger, slower, easier to track. Boats are even slower!

 

[crazyfingers]

So Iran has appointed Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as the new supreme leader. Another hardliner.

What has Trump accomplished?