War with...Iran?
- Thread starter Technarch
- Start date
The US has no assets which can support such an objective.
The absolute best thing they could have done was to let Khamenei die of old age or cancer, that would have been the regime’s weakest moment and in light of the protests almost certainly would have led to a moderation of its policies.
Absolutely any external act of force entrenches the regime as a defender against foreign aggression.
Apparently Iran wants war reparations. Anyone know if they want a whole bunch of hotels and golf courses because the king should pay that from his own estates.
That's not a contradiction. He sees us as vassals, but since we are bad vassals who are not paying tribute to the imperial center and obeying every command out of Washington then he calls us leeches.
It's all about his narcissistic imperial mindset.
Is that not by design though? If they show up to an interview where one is rebuked, the reason for the war is one of the other 5 that are in play.
In Europe we're having to deal with this shit.
You go down to the pub, overhear the following: “With this idiot in charge” [pulse rate increases] “there’s been no shortage of strategic missteps” [rate stays high] “but this latest fuckup could be truly existential” [rate spikes] “for Everton’s chances” [pulse settles down]
Credit to Alex Hern who came up with the above.
Remind me, how long did it take to find the non-existent WMD's in Iraq again?
It’s time for one of the other NATO leaders or all together to tell Trump that escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz is utterly pointless. To so so would be to treat the symptoms, whereas what is needed is to cure the sickness, i.e. to persuade the Iranians to stop their blockade.
There are two ways to do that: to agree a peace deal or to undertake a full-scale invasion and not lose. The latter would be impossible and would return in massive casualties, both US troops and Iranian civilians as well as troops.
The only answer therefore is to stop the war, but Trump and Hegseth have no idea how to do that, never having thought about or planned for the consequences of their stupid actions.
There are two ways to do that: to agree a peace deal or to undertake a full-scale invasion and not lose. The latter would be impossible and would return in massive casualties, both US troops and Iranian civilians as well as troops.
The only answer therefore is to stop the war, but Trump and Hegseth have no idea how to do that, never having thought about or planned for the consequences of their stupid actions.
This is the usual MO for all USA "wars" in middle and far east.
And when the resulting refugees arrive in Europe, we get badmouthed for sheltering them. "Civilisation erasure" and so on...
The difference is that, thanks to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran controls the pace of this war, at least, unless we decide to do with a full scale invasion. Unless we can figure out a way to keep Iranian military assets away from the strait, our desire to end the war won't do very much without Iran's agreement.
Last edited:
"Old sex predator with dementia lies about receiving praise from former president for starting war with Iran"
Is the headline we deserve. But
Is the best we're going to get. He can't even dig up a retired Republican war hawk to toot his horn, he's gotta hallucinate conversations with former presidents?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...bing-iran-four-denials-suggest-not-rcna263819
Is the headline we deserve. But
"Trump said he spoke to a former president about bombing Iran. Four denials suggest otherwise."
Is the best we're going to get. He can't even dig up a retired Republican war hawk to toot his horn, he's gotta hallucinate conversations with former presidents?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...bing-iran-four-denials-suggest-not-rcna263819
So, by elimination of other living former presidents - Trump talks to himself?
Or hears voices of the dead - that's also possible.
Or hears voices of the dead - that's also possible.
Well, today we have Trump being Trump on live television. This would be hilarious if the US didn't just fuck up The Rest of The World™.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cnn-supercut-donald-trump-contradictions_n_69b8fa88e4b09a39145e7e89
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cnn-supercut-donald-trump-contradictions_n_69b8fa88e4b09a39145e7e89
He technically is a former president so yeah, technically not lying about it either in that case. Fuck.
Well, there's your problem right there -- it was a written report. Should have been a flip book of colorful pictures instead, something Trump can understand.
Now I'm picturing Trump doing that Gollum scene with looking back at the camera from opposite sides of the tree or whatever...
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...er-director-resigns-over-war-iran-2026-03-17/
"I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby," Joseph Kent wrote in a letter to Trump posted on X.
Not that we didn't know it already, but that's one reason for the war that doesn't fly then.
"I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby," Joseph Kent wrote in a letter to Trump posted on X.
Not that we didn't know it already, but that's one reason for the war that doesn't fly then.
Sigh.I was thinking more the "Shadow Cabinet" scene from Babylon 5.
Babylon 5 really was prologue, but only because, you know, Straczynski was working from the template we call history. Unfortunately, here in the real, we only have the genocidal business plots and no Sheridans.
I'm sure he only started it so he could end yet another war. He's nearing 10 wars ended now, I think. Shoo-in for the FIFA Peace Prize again, next year.
Apropos of nothing, isn't there some law on the books here in the US that says any attempt to charge a US politician or president or whatever in the International Criminal Court is automatically considered an act of war?
Then the US would be at war with 125 nations all at once given that the ICC charter has a 125 signatories.
The Hague Invasion Act. Not charged, but anyone detained, and kind of. It's not automatically an act of war per se, but it gives the presiding President unilateral power to do anything necessary to retrieve personnel.
Passed in 2002, presumably because the Bush regime already had their Afghanistan and Iraq war crimes planned and wanted as much immunity and insulation as possible.
It's like poetry. It rhymes.
That letter is... something....
https://i.redd.it/ldjqs9479mpg1.jpeg
Openly blaming Israel for conning Trump into attacking Iran AND blaming them for conning Bush into attacking Iraq is going to do wonders to the debates about Israel...
Iran isn't a signatory to the ICC either (and neither is Lebanon, fwiw), so there's not really any jurisdiction. The ICC is only supposed to get involved between non-signing nations if referred by the Security Council, and that will never happen in this case.
Anyone following recent world history—and specifically this region should be unsurprised about Netanyahu's aims. Regarding Trump—and by extension the US—they made the choice to embark upon this dubious endeavor. Regardless of of any type of persuasion or influence, the responsibility falls squarely on them for engaging Iran. It's their mess to clean up.
Basically: "you were doing everything right with foreign policy until now." So, this guy's an idiot and this falls into the category of a broken clock being right twice a day.
Surely the Sun King of the Entire Western World and the Shield of Nations himself cannot be conned?
But look, surround yourself with conspiracy loons and sooner or later one will say the uncomfortable stuff out loud, apparently the whole MAGA world is now heading towards civil war because the anti-semites feel aggrieved with Carlson and Kelly leading the parade.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/us/politics/iran-war-trump-conservative-divide-israel.html
Last edited:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026...lled-ali-larijani-irans-top-security-official
Israel claims Iran’s security chief Larijani and Basij commander have been killed. Israel has remained very efficient at killing Iran's leadership. It remain to be see if killing the head(s) really a path to peace. (or whatever goals Israel/USA have).
Israel claims Iran’s security chief Larijani and Basij commander have been killed. Israel has remained very efficient at killing Iran's leadership. It remain to be see if killing the head(s) really a path to peace. (or whatever goals Israel/USA have).
Maybe Republicans should elect stronger leaders. Maybe they should try electing one with half a brain, so they can stop listening to Netanyahu and stop engaging in stupid wars. Maybe Democrats could do that too, one day.
As for Israel, well, lots of things aren't going to do wonders for the debates about Israel. Al-Jazeera is reporting that Israel now says the Lebanese people won't be allowed to return home. I'm sure Lebanese folks are going to feel really reassured by that words from the hyper aggressive, land grabbing, destabilizing neighbor run by far right extremists and backed by a superpower largely in the same boat, and it's not like those words don't have an alarming precedent.
Correct. He is a MAGA person.
Meanwhile, Gulf states are pressing the US to continue wrecking Iran. We're basically getting the worst of all worlds: the US is just a sucker mercenary largely doing everyone else's bidding, while also supplying all of Iran's opponents with arms that they're unwilling to use to advance their own professed goals directly (and the US is doing the same, when it comes to using its naval asset to secure the Strait of Hormuz).
I'm not holding my breath. It's all tactics, no strategy. There are 90 million people; there will likely be another Larjiani to fill the role.
I think Israel is just following a very expansive experiment to test if the Great man theory is true or not. /s
Military power occasionally works for overthrowing tinpot dictators whose power is based on military fealty (Ghaddafi, Noriega, Hussein, etc...) but is considerably less effective at toppling autocratic regimes backed by religious / cultural foundations (Iran, USSR, Vietnam, etc...).
Put another way, the Soviet Union fell because the policies of perestroika and glasnost made western-style freedom tangible in a way to ordinary citizens that then catalyzed a revolution (that then got subsumed by oligarchic greed, but that's another story), not because Reagan outspent the USSR on military.
The problem for American politicians with the latter approach is that it takes decades of the consistent application of soft power and no one has time for that shit these days.
It may be of note that the "tinpot dictators" you cite were mostly clients of the USA who became inconvenient at some point. This was the case with Iran as well—until the Shah became insufferable and led to the current government.
In reference to the USSR I think it’s important to note that multiple things can be true. Towards the tail end of the empire they were spending upwards of 20% GDP on the military. Did this break the union all by itself? No, but within a context of economic stagnation and rampant corruption, it was an unsustainable burden that weakened the state’s ability to perform all the other functions of statehood. The feedback loop inevitably led to regional breakaway as colonial states stopped receiving benefits besides more weapons.
Gee, can't think of any parallels there.