[Macros]

Doesnt change the fact that they don't win ground wars on their own?

[the broken]

When was the last time they fought one?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

According to Iran's foreign minister, Israel attacked an Iranian power plant and civilian nuclear power sites in coordination with the United States, in breach of the pledge not to attack Iran's power grid. He says that Iran will exact a "heavy price" in retaliation.

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

So much for being able to trust any promises Trump or Netanyahu make about the United States and Israel not assaulting Iran in the future. Though that was already obviously a major impasse.

Suggesting that the only way to deter future attacks by the United States will be to make the damage---economic or otherwise---sufficiently severe.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 27 March 2026 - 07:38 PM

[Macros]

the broken, on 27 March 2026 - 06:43 PM, said:

When was the last time they fought one?

Have they stopped?

The only war the USA has won on their own was the civil war

[Cyphon]

I know this a good line, but I wonder contextually how different that is to when any other 'major' nation state winning a war on their own?

[Grief]

The current war is obviously going poorly but it takes a huge recency bias to think that the US has not been the dominant global military power across recent history, and it's especially dubious to claim that military dominance does or has done nothing for the US.

The post-WW2 system has majorly favoured US economic interests. The world has largely accepted liberal capitalism, market restrictions to American companies and American investors have been torn down, and global trade has been conducted in dollars.

You can ask whether the strategic interests that the US pursues benefit its citizens, but that's not necessarily the yardstick the country itself is using. The US is a capitalist country and has successfuly pursued strategic interests that massively benefit its capitalist class. It's military dominance has played a major part in that.

When Russia pursues policies that benefit its oligarchs, does the fact that Russian citizens don't benefit from that mean they have not achieved the goal they set out to achieve?

Beyond that, it's hugely debateable to claim that American strategy has not benefited its citizens in any way. If nothing else, American dominance has allowed it to borrow huge amounts of debt cheaply instead of having to raise that money from its citizens or companies. The global position of the dollar is a massive boon for the country as a whole. And that is secured, in part, by foreign policy.

I find it odd when people simultaneously hold that the US is an extractive, imperialist, nation and at the same time act like their military has not achieved anyything for them.

[Werthead]

Iranian missiles have hit Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia, damaging or destroying multiple USAF KC-135 refuelling tankers. Looks like a significant hit.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is warning of a "potential escalation" this weekend.

Israel has hit Iran's Khondab Heavy Water Nuclear Complex, the Khouzestan Steel Plant and Mobarakeh Steel Plant. Iran has said this is an attack on civilian infrastructure and it will respond in kind.

The United States has used up almost one-third of its entire Tomahawk missile inventory (that's globally) in the conflict so far, sounding alarm bells in military procurement. The Tomahawk inventory assigned to CENTCOM is basically gone already.

[Tsundoku]

I wonder how nervous Taiwan is feeling.

[QuickTidal]

 Tsundoku, on 28 March 2026 - 02:30 AM, said:

I wonder how nervous Taiwan is feeling.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. China will not invade or conquer Taiwan…they will wait till an amenable govt decides rejoining China is in their interest. Until then, China will wait.

[the broken]

Hopefully you're right.

What do we think Iranian stockpiles are like? Are the strikes getting less intense?

Edit: In terms of interceptions, they have all the Gulf States stocks doing interceptions as well, and once the Ukrainians get more involved it will get more efficient.

This post has been edited by the broken: 28 March 2026 - 05:17 PM

[Tapper]

 the broken, on 28 March 2026 - 05:12 PM, said:

Hopefully you're right.

What do we think Iranian stockpiles are like? Are the strikes getting less intense?

Edit: In terms of interceptions, they have all the Gulf States stocks doing interceptions as well, and once the Ukrainians get more involved it will get more efficient.

I read today an assessment by an (anonymous) US government intelligence official on Politico that estimated 30-35% of Iran’s missile stockpile was depleted/destroyed. Likely, more of their launchers, and getting the missiles to the launchers is of course also an issue with US/Israeli air superiority.
Furthermore, Iran doesn’t need to hit with every missile, as long as some land.

Regarding the whole discussion on who is winning: entirely irrelevant as both sides and the rest of the world have their own metrics to judge success by and are very much trying to suffocate the other’s message. The US points to the destruction caused and the low losses they suffer through the air campaign. Analysts mention the economical damage Iran’s control of the Strait causes the rest of the world, which Trump tries to manage/downplay. In the end, Iran will need to rebuild and the US will have depleted significant parts of its arsenal on a largely irrelevant war that made neither side any gains in the region or in the world, by and large.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Tapper, on 28 March 2026 - 06:39 PM, said:

the broken, on 28 March 2026 - 05:12 PM, said:

Hopefully you're right.

What do we think Iranian stockpiles are like? Are the strikes getting less intense?

Edit: In terms of interceptions, they have all the Gulf States stocks doing interceptions as well, and once the Ukrainians get more involved it will get more efficient.

I read today an assessment by an (anonymous) US government intelligence official on Politico that estimated 30-35% of Iran's missile stockpile was depleted/destroyed. Likely, more of their launchers, and getting the missiles to the launchers is of course also an issue with US/Israeli air superiority.
Furthermore, Iran doesn't need to hit with every missile, as long as some land.

Regarding the whole discussion on who is winning: entirely irrelevant as both sides and the rest of the world have their own metrics to judge success by and are very much trying to suffocate the other's message. The US points to the destruction caused and the low losses they suffer through the air campaign. Analysts mention the economical damage Iran's control of the Strait causes the rest of the world, which Trump tries to manage/downplay. In the end, Iran will need to rebuild and the US will have depleted significant parts of its arsenal on a largely irrelevant war that made neither side any gains in the region or in the world, by and large.

If Iran successfully implements their toll system and it continues indefinitely, they may be in a stronger economic position in the long-term---and even moreso if Trump is so eager to avoid committing massive numbers of ground troops to an occupation of a buffer zone around the the coast that he agrees to pay reparations. And if they inflict enough economic damage to successfully deter future US strikes, that will be a positive for them as well. (At least unless advances in automation make it much easier to invade and occupy the coastal buffer zone without committing large numbers of human troops.)

Netanyahu also succeeded in installing a hard-line government that is likely to last for a long time for him and other militant Israelis to hold up as an enemy; without the Israeli and US intervention, a moderate reformer might have succeeded the very old and terminally ill Ayatollah.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 28 March 2026 - 11:43 PM

[Werthead]

China will invade Taiwan if one of several red lines is crossed, such as Taiwan declaring independence, or a US military buildup starts (such as America landing thousands of troops or transferring certain very high-end weapons systems).

Otherwise the logistics of attacking Taiwan are formidable, Chinese losses would be high and inflict real pain on the working and middle classes for the first time since the Korean War (the pandemic aside, and the strength of the protests then scared the leadership), and though China has the military capacity to take Taiwan, it may not have the capacity to do so and simultaneously fight a major multi-theatre peer war with the United States and potential allies.

However, the big question mark is Xi, who is definitely egotistical enough to want the job done on his watch. He turns 73 this year, so whilst younger than Trump, he is still starting to get up there, and the CCP's mechanisms for recycling incompetent leaders, even powerful ones, are quite formidable. One of Xi's positions has been to have the Chinese military ready to take Taiwan by the end of 2027 (the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party's armed wing being founded), and they're probably there already in terms of military strength of the navy, aircraft, drones and missile systems. However, they're still lacking carriers and their land forces have recently been denuded of resources to strengthen the navy, meaning they can surround Taiwan and may be able to land on its coasts, but it needs more resources to get tanks and troops onto the island. China also has the issue that it really needs to capture Taiwan and its semiconductor and chip factories intact, and as the war in Ukraine has shown, a major modern war fought in urban areas can easily flatten the area completely. China also knows its position in the world is in part strengthened by it not going around blowing things up like the US, which goes out the window the second they attack Taiwan (along with their economic relationships with Europe, Australia, Canada, the US, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines etc, which would cause a serious shock to the Chinese economy).

China invading Taiwan would be fairly irrational and self-harming, but given that Russia and the US have done irrational, self-harming things recently, maybe Xi wants to get in on the act. But I wouldn't put money on it.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 28 March 2026 - 11:27 PM

[Werthead]

Confirmation that an E-3 Sentry was destroyed at Riyadh.

JP Morgan is warning of a ticking time bomb over oil. Physical scarcity of oil could unfold across the globe, spreading sequentially through April from east to west. The reduction in the oil supply is twice as large as in any previous crisis and will have a massive impact on Asia, with China having the largest drop in supply, though they also have storage capacity to withstand the shock. Europe will feel the pinch only in mid-April and has diverse alternate sources, but prices will still rise.

[Macros]

Filled the car yesterday

Fuck you Donald

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 28 March 2026 - 05:12 PM, said:

Hopefully you're right.

What do we think Iranian stockpiles are like? Are the strikes getting less intense?

Edit: In terms of interceptions, they have all the Gulf States stocks doing interceptions as well, and once the Ukrainians get more involved it will get more efficient.

Quote

Iran still most likely possesses thousands of Shahed drones and could still have hundreds of ballistic missiles [...], one U.S. official said. But the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss military capabilities, cautioned that it was impossible to know for sure, as U.S. intelligence on Iranian ability is limited.

Public statements from the American military have been carefully worded. For instance, [...] the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said on Wednesday that "Iran's drone and missile launch rates are down 90 percent," courtesy of American and Israeli strikes. That is not the same thing as saying those strikes have eliminated 90 percent of Iranian drones and missiles.

[...] a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, a foreign affairs research institute in Washington, says the number of strikes may not matter as much as how effectively Iran is using its arsenal. [...] The U.S. military may have mistaken reduced activity for reduced capacity. Iran could have been firing fewer missiles and drones because it was repositioning them, she said, not because they were destroyed. The Iranians may have been slowing their pace of attack as they integrated new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information into their targeting decisions. [...] an analyst of Iran and weapons systems at the Geneva Graduate Institute in Switzerland, agreed with [their] analysis that while Iran was launching fewer missiles, they had higher penetration rates than at the beginning of the war. They also appeared to be threatening more sensitive or eye-catching targets

A Toothless Iran? Missile and Drone Strikes Show It Can Still Inflict Pain. - The New York Times

Article also points out that shrapnel from successful interceptions of Iranian missiles has caused at least two deaths so far.

[Cause]

I didn’t think boots on the ground would ever be a real possibility but right now it looks 50:50 if not even more likely, never thought Trump would have the stomachs for it. Which means it’s time to seriously consider if the chaos is an excuse for him to fuck with the midterms and beyond.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

"To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the U.S. say: 'why are you doing that?' But they're stupid people," Trump told the [Financial Times].

The outlet noted "such a move would involve seizing Kharg Island through which most of Iran's oil is exported." Trump has been calling for the U.S. to take the island for years, including in 1988 when he said he would "do a number" on it.

[...] "Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don't. We have a lot of options," Trump said. "It would also mean we had to be there [in Kharg Island] for a while."

Trump's Favorite Plan for Iran: Go In and 'Take the Oil' - Mediaite

Of course Trump thinks:"they've got oil, let's go take it!"

But Kharg Island gets its oil from pipelines to distant oil fields... does he want to seize those too while he's at it? Is he going to try to demand a toll for letting Iranian oil through? Maybe he'll decide that the Iranian government's plan to charge a toll "protection" fee for passing through the Strait is a good idea too...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 01:35 AM

[amphibian]

 Cause, on 29 March 2026 - 09:06 PM, said:

I didn’t think boots on the ground would ever be a real possibility but right now it looks 50:50 if not even more likely, never thought Trump would have the stomachs for it. Which means it’s time to seriously consider if the chaos is an excuse for him to fuck with the midterms and beyond.

It's about 80%/20% some version of military occupation of some territory is happening in the next two weeks vs it doesn't happen.

This is of course evil and massively unpopular in the country, yet still there are enough fervent believers and volunteers that this will happen. The slight silver lining is that these people aren't good at executing components of a very tricky geopolitical strategy at all and that this might be the big shift that causes much of the world to go solar powered (with other renewables) as China has lately done.

[Macros]

Send those bone spurs wearing fucks in to donthe job then, see how keen they are for war