[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 15 July 2026 - 04:07 PM, said:

At the same time they also wanted to continue supporting terrorist groups, repressing their own people, murdering dissidents, controlling the straight of hormuz, and developing nuclear weapons. And anyone who believes for a second that they will ever actually stop doing all of those things - short of a complete regime change - is kidding themselves massively.

The JCPOA who had regular inspections prior to Trump and Bibi's nonsense affirms the bolded was not happening. Remember that Israel has been telling me that Iran is 2 weeks away from a nuclear weapon since I was a child in the 1980's. It's warmongering propaganda.

And the Strait was not being actively messed with before Trump and Bibi's nonsense. Passage was free and clear for all.

the rest I'll give you...but I reiterate Regime change by the USA has not worked out in most of the 167 times they'd done it in their history...it's almost always worse for the inhabitants of those countries. If Iran is ever to change regimes, or get back to what they were BEFORE the USA started fucking with them for the crime of daring to want their oil resources to benefit their citizens...that will need to happen organically inside the country and not from external pressure, and not especially from a country as self-interested as the USA.

No one in the USA who talks about caring about the people of Iran, give a flying shit about the people of Iran.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 15 July 2026 - 05:10 PM

[Illuyankas]

Hell one of the big worries was that the Ayatollah they initially assassinated was the (relatively) big dove and was going to be replaced by a hard-liner who would definitely not be willing to make a deal, especially now they have conclusive proof that the US cannot be trusted to stick to their word.

Also, Iran getting nukes is objectively their smartest move from a defense standpoint, just from the risk of the US getting even a slightly more competent warhawk down the line. The difference in how North Korea and Ukraine have fared is proof enough of that.

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 15 July 2026 - 06:16 PM, said:

Also, Iran getting nukes is objectively their smartest move from a defense standpoint, just from the risk of the US getting even a slightly more competent warhawk down the line.

The argument could also be made that the US position that allowed them to have the nuclear stockpile that they do to begin with post WWII/Cold War was that they would be a benevolent ally to the rest of us...well that lasted only as long as the US didn't elect a criminal pedo buffoon...and now I fear HIM using them more than I do anyone else.

That piece of orange trash having access to Nuclear weapons is WAY more threatening to me than anyone else having them. The rules about the nuclear football is that all the President needs to do to launch them is for the SecDef (fucking Hegseth) to confirm it's the president who is giving the order. He can't stop him. He just confirms the president gave the order. And then the only thing standing in the way of him nuking anywhere after that would be Generals on the ships with the nukes disobeying orders from their commander in chief...that's a super thin ass line between the world and Armageddon.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 15 July 2026 - 05:09 PM, said:

Abyss, on 15 July 2026 - 04:07 PM, said:

At the same time they also wanted to continue supporting terrorist groups, repressing their own people, murdering dissidents, controlling the straight of hormuz, and developing nuclear weapons. And anyone who believes for a second that they will ever actually stop doing all of those things - short of a complete regime change - is kidding themselves massively.

The JCPOA who had regular inspections prior to Trump and Bibi's nonsense affirms the bolded was not happening. Remember that Israel has been telling me that Iran is 2 weeks away from a nuclear weapon since I was a child in the 1980's. It's warmongering propaganda.

There's a yes/no to that... i agree that over decades the threat has been wildly exaggerated or just flat out lied about by various parties at various times for self-serving reasons. But i am also of the view that it's been real at points. This is Iran we're talking about. They have every reason to want nukes, every reason to do whatever it takes to get them, and have flat out said they fully intend to pursue nuclear materials 'for peaceful purposes'. And if you believe that, coming from them, i have a lovely stretch of beach right on the Strait to sell you.

Quote

And the Strait was not being actively messed with before Trump and Bibi's nonsense. Passage was free and clear for all.

Accurate. And now they have stated they intend to charge a fee, but less than Trump, so there's that. Lovely bit of turnabout that was, actually.

Quote

the rest I'll give you...but I reiterate Regime change by the USA has not worked out in most of the 167 times they'd done it in their history...it's almost always worse for the inhabitants of those countries. If Iran is ever to change regimes, or get back to what they were BEFORE the USA started fucking with them for the crime of daring to want their oil resources to benefit their citizens...that will need to happen organically inside the country and not from external pressure, and not especially from a country as self-interested as the USA.

No one in the USA who talks about caring about the people of Iran, give a flying shit about the people of Iran.

We're on the same ground there.

[the broken]

Quote

It's not hard to understand... Iran wanted the big bad superpower to stop bombing the crap out of their military and assets.<br style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">
At the same time they also wanted to continue supporting terrorist groups, repressing their own people, murdering dissidents, controlling the straight of hormuz, and developing nuclear weapons. And anyone who believes for a second that they will ever actually stop doing all of those things - short of a complete regime change - is kidding themselves massively.

Way to do that would have been to ask Hezbollah or Hamas to launch without having to do it themselves. But they struck ships in such a way as to invite a US response. Sticking to the MOU, fragile as it was, was the better move, but they did a strike anyway.

Quote

Hell one of the big worries was that the Ayatollah they initially assassinated was the (relatively) big dove and was going to be replaced by a hard-liner who would definitely not be willing to make a deal, especially now they have conclusive proof that the US cannot be trusted to stick to their word.

So did that happen? Who is in charge? The New Ayatollah if he is alive is hiding in a bunker somewhere, who is holding the reins and what are their positions? This stuff is important, but the Western coverage keeps getting distracted by Trump and Mid-terms as though nothing else matters.

[QuickTidal]

the broken, on 15 July 2026 - 09:27 PM, said:

This stuff is important, but the Western coverage keeps getting distracted by Trump and Mid-terms as though nothing else matters.[/size]

Nothing else does matter. The man in the White House is causing ALL of this AND he has nuclear weapons at his disposal.

Until he's gone, or is a lame duck..he is THE biggest threat on the planet. End of.

[the broken]

I still feel like events and people of Iran have relevance in these matters.

[QuickTidal]

 the broken, on 17 July 2026 - 03:30 PM, said:

I still feel like events and people of Iran have relevance in these matters.

They have for decades and nada. Only now when it’s to trumps use are they thought of.

Trust me, I have Iranian expat Friends. They are now horribly mad at him and want the midterms to neuter him

[the broken]

Who do they think the surviving key figures in Iran are?

[Cause]

I have lead no armies to victories but the options in a war seem somewhat self evident. Fight, negotiate, Win, Lose.

How is America letting Trump dictate a war based on his feelings of the day, tweets and poll numbers. I have been making fun of him but now it’s actually ridiculous. Peace in the morning and bombing in the evening every day for a week now.

Either escalate or backdown. Formulate a strategy and execute.

[Abyss]

Cause, on 30 July 2026 - 02:00 PM, said:

I have lead no armies to victories but the options in a war seem somewhat self evident. Fight, negotiate, Win, Lose.

How is America letting Trump dictate a war based on his feelings of the day, tweets and poll numbers. I have been making fun of him but now it's actually ridiculous. Peace in the morning and bombing in the evening every day for a week now.

Either escalate or backdown. Formulate a strategy and execute.

My $0.02, sadly, America's best bet is for Trump to low-ball continue this til he's gone and a new government can blame everything on Trump and exit.

Escalate is a problem because it didn't work in Iraq or Afghanistan. They 'won', then left declaring hollow empty fooling absolutely no one 'victory!'. They can't raze Iran down to scorched earth, the rest of the world including Saudi and other oil rich Middle-eastern allies won't stand for it. They can't maintain control of the Strait without massive commitment of resources and lives and likely resulting loss over something American cannot 'own' or hold.

Back down is out of the question for Trump. There is no version of that where he can leave Iran in control of the Strait. Even among his most idiot base a retreat will lose him support.

And negotiation is a fucking joke so far, on all sides.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 30 July 2026 - 05:44 PM, said:

Escalate is a problem because it didn't work in Iraq or Afghanistan. They 'won', then left declaring hollow empty fooling absolutely no one 'victory!'. They can't raze Iran down to scorched earth, the rest of the world including Saudi and other oil rich Middle-eastern allies won't stand for it.

It's actually simpler than this. Iran is not take-able from an army standpoint as they would need a million soldiers to even try considering the terrain and the size. Iran is the size of like all of continental Europe. This is part of the reason no US president till now was dumb enough to get into this. So there's no options to bomb them more without basically asking for retaliation on all US military bases in the region, and ground troops is a non-starter...if people thought mothers were upset to see their sons die in Vietnam, that was a cakewalk compared to this.

The BEST bet was ALWAYS to talk and have Iran at the JCPOA table like it was with Obama...full access for the globally recognized group of all nuclear dealings in Iran to make sure nothing untoward was occurring. Like none of this was a fucking problem before Trump...the progress made during Obama's tenure was the most there had been since the 70's...gone because a narcissist could not stomach that Obama achieved anything, and he needed a distraction war for his other legal problems.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2026 - 05:52 PM, said:

Abyss, on 30 July 2026 - 05:44 PM, said:

Escalate is a problem because it didn't work in Iraq or Afghanistan. They 'won', then left declaring hollow empty fooling absolutely no one 'victory!'. They can't raze Iran down to scorched earth, the rest of the world including Saudi and other oil rich Middle-eastern allies won't stand for it.

It's actually simpler than this. Iran is not take-able from an army standpoint as they would need a million soldiers to even try considering the terrain and the size. Iran is the size of like all of continental Europe. This is part of the reason no US president till now was dumb enough to get into this. So there's no options to bomb them more without basically asking for retaliation on all US military bases in the region, and ground troops is a non-starter...if people thought mothers were upset to see their sons die in Vietnam, that was a cakewalk compared to this.

The BEST bet was ALWAYS to talk and have Iran at the JCPOA table like it was with Obama...full access for the globally recognized group of all nuclear dealings in Iran to make sure nothing untoward was occurring. Like none of this was a fucking problem before Trump...the progress made during Obama's tenure was the most there had been since the 70's...gone because a narcissist could not stomach that Obama achieved anything, and he needed a distraction war for his other legal problems.

Now that you mention it, he could conceivably make massive concessions, possibly in secret, get Iran back to the table and get the same deal Obama had but pronounce it massively superior and better for everybody and his biggest triumph yet as president. His usual suckers would buy it, the rest of the world would roll eyes and move on.

Irony, the biggest impediment to that is Iran doesn't care about its people and has realized they just need to hold the line and let trump be trump. And if they do sit down to the table, Netanyahu will probably bomb somebody and ruin it anyways.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2026 - 05:52 PM, said:

Iran is the size of like all of continental Europe.

Guess you didn't mean that literally; you're essentially right that it's very large relative to European countries (not counting Russia, since that's partly in Asia). In terms of numbers, Iran is about 1.65 million km², which is more than twice the size of Ukraine, and about 2.6 times the size of France. However, just to clarify, continental Europe is about 6.2 times the size of Iran.

Abyss, on 30 July 2026 - 06:54 PM, said:

Now that you mention it, he could conceivably make massive concessions, possibly in secret, get Iran back to the table and get the same deal Obama had but pronounce it massively superior and better for everybody and his biggest triumph yet as president. His usual suckers would buy it, the rest of the world would roll eyes and move on.

Irony, the biggest impediment to that is Iran doesn't care about its people and has realized they just need to hold the line and let trump be trump. And if they do sit down to the table, Netanyahu will probably bomb somebody and ruin it anyways.

The 30 year treasury yield reached its highest level since 2007. If yields keep rising they will threaten the federal government's ability to spend money, as well as likely tank the stock market. Bond yields will most likely force Trump to back down, while of course declaring victory (yet again).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 30 July 2026 - 11:24 PM

[Cause]

I’m also surprised that NATO or the rest of the world hasn’t stepped in. The 20% cut in oil is a global problem and looming disaster. Not necessarily step in to help America but to help force negotiations, guarantee the safety and freedom of the straight.

Iran can threaten the straight but can’t secure it either. This whole thing is threatening a future when any 3rd rate state sponsored group with a few drones or missiles could lock down shipping lanes. A dangerous precedent to set.

Also tankers have been hit and seem to survive. So this is more about money, insurance and fear. Isn’t this kind of thing why countries have merchants marines marines.

I imagine we will see some crazy fast pipeline development soon to give all the Middle East countries access to the Mediterranean

[the broken]

NATO can't step in because it has no way to guarantee the safety of the strait without hitting the same problems.

Didn't the new bombing start in retaliation for an Iranian launch?

[Illuyankas]

The only reason Trump even ran for president is to get back at Obama for taking the piss out of him at that one White House Correspondent's Dinner, it's one of the few things that still get through his rot-addled brain so there's no way he'll settle for anything resembling Obama's agreement especially when this whole mess started because he wanted to remove even more of Obama's legacy

The US and Israel are drastically scrambling for time to rearm for more bombing runs on civilian infrastructure and don't seem to have understood that no one can trust their word that they won't break the next truce or ceasefire after all the previous times they broke it

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 30 July 2026 - 10:08 PM

[Abyss]

Real talk - what could NATO possibly do?

[Chance]

Abyss, on 31 July 2026 - 04:49 PM, said:

Real talk - what could NATO possibly do?

Unless they are ready to go to nuclear war, go full war (ww1/ww2 style) or bomb Iran's power and water infrastructure to the stone age (displacing many millions) which all seems highly unlikely, not much. Probably not even secure the Hormuz straight barring enormous and ongoing costs for the foreseeable future.

This post has been edited by Chance: 31 July 2026 - 07:09 PM

[Cause]

Honestly have no idea but doing nothing it’s my working either. If America can’t negotiate this, the. Someone else has to step in as a viable as 3rd party to broker some kind of deal. Is the straights oil just going to be turned off forever?

If not Nato, China?

At the very least the USA needs a strategy that is longer term than 1 day of bombing, or 1 day of we are talking and we will see what happens.