Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 7K
  • Views: 217K
  • Politics 
1. Invade
2. Fly the US flag
3. Distribute pseudo masculine imagery and jingo porn
4. Claim victory
5. Withdraw troops
6. IRGC reclaims Kharg Island and reconstitutes longitudinal plan to hold the world economy at the point of a gun (hell they don’t need Kharg for that)
 
Delta74 said:
This is a summary of Trump discussing war in general during his 2024 campaign:

During his 2024 presidential campaign,
Donald Trump
did not support a war with
Iran
. In fact, he centered his foreign policy message on ending "endless" wars and repeatedly promised to prevent a "third world war".
NBC News +2

2024 Campaign Stance
  • Anti-Interventionist Messaging:Trump consistently branded himself as the "peace" candidate, vowing to "expel the warmongers" from government.
  • Direct Denials: Just days before the 2024 election, he told a New York City crowd, "You're not going to have a war with me".
  • Victory Speech: In his November 2024 victory speech, he stated, "I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars".
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately none of this will matter a bit to Trump supporters. To them, he's an idol. The man could literally launch our entire arsenal of nukes at Russia, thus ending the world, and his supporters would happily go down in flames chanting "U-S-A..U-S-A..." to their graves. All to own the libs.
 
lawtig02 said:
The same regime is still in charge.
Click to expand...
So are you ok in 5 years handing that regime nuclear bombs? Because that is exactly what that agreement did.

Israel (nor SA, UAE, Jordan, Iraq, etc) surely wouldn’t be ok and we would be in a much worse situation with a much higher threat of nuclear weapons being used. It’s existential to Israel. Not sure how people don’t understand how fucked it would be for the US to green light Iran’s development of nukes

My intent in criticizing the agreement wasn’t an indictment of Obama. Pub and dem presidents have kicked the can down the road since the revolution and all share in the blame in not addressing the Iran nuke problem. Trump decided to not kick the can anymore for a multitude of reasons. Reasonable people can agree with it or disagree. I happen to agree. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has done since and sure as hell doesn’t mean I agree with what has come out of his mouth. He has made it much harder than he had to but that is how he rolls. We disagree on the decision to act, but I have many of the same concerns you do.
 
Callatoroy said:
So are you ok in 5 years handing that regime nuclear bombs? Because that is exactly what that agreement did.

Israel (nor SA, UAE, Jordan, Iraq, etc) surely wouldn’t be ok and we would be in a much worse situation with a much higher threat of nuclear weapons being used. It’s existential to Israel. Not sure how people don’t understand how fucked it would be for the US to green light Iran’s development of nukes

My intent in criticizing the agreement wasn’t an indictment of Obama. Pub and dem presidents have kicked the can down the road since the revolution and all share in the blame in not addressing the Iran nuke problem. Trump decided to not kick the can anymore for a multitude of reasons. Reasonable people can agree with it or disagree. I happen to agree. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has done since and sure as hell doesn’t mean I agree with what has come out of his mouth. He has made it much harder than he had to but that is how he rolls. We disagree on the decision to act, but I have many of the same concerns you do.
Click to expand...
My main concern is won't really be able to destroy their development capability unless we send in large numbers of ground troops. Even then, what's to start Iran from starting all over again as soon as we're done? With help from Russia, NK, etc., I suspect we'll be shocked how fast they can get it going again. Especially since we've now given them every incentive to do so. Trump hasn't bombed NK for a reason. Iran would love nothing more than to have that same protection.
 
So Calla, when Trump TACO's and tuck's tail and disengages, are you going to fill us all in on what exactly was achieved after this year's attack that changed the nuclear possibility in any way?

And Trump's usual puffery about "this was the greatest and best Presidential lead exercise in the history of warfare" is meaningless. Also, ambiguous, illogical Trump bullshit and made up stories don't count -- we took out all enriched uranium, they spoke directly to "someone" that surrendered and promised never to seek nuclear capabilities (with a signed agreement later this year or next.) No, only verified evidence will count
 
Calheel said:
Like Afghanistan and Iraq. Easy to take. Hard to hold.

You’d be far better blowing the whole thing up than trying to occupy. But Trump doesn’t want to do anything that hurts the world’s oil supply.
Click to expand...
If we put an occupation force there then Iran will blow it up as they lob missiles and drones at the troops so isn't it the same net result to the world's oil supply? I'd just leave it alone - Strait of Hormuz is much more important.
 
lawtig02 said:
My main concern is won't really be able to destroy their development capability unless we send in large numbers of ground troops. Even then, what's to start Iran from starting all over again as soon as we're done? With help from Russia, NK, etc., I suspect we'll be shocked how fast they can get it going again. Especially since we've now given them every incentive to do so. Trump hasn't bombed NK for a reason. Iran would love nothing more than to have that same protection.
Click to expand...
NK had the advantage of being able to hit Seoul with common artillery - which gave them conventional deterrence while they developed their nuclear capability. Iran's drone/missile retaliation hasn't been as effective as what NK would have been able to do to a city of 10 million people - geography was on NK's side. If Iran regroups then they will certainly focus on ability to effectively hit Tel Aviv or other large cities in the area - more investment in drones or cheap means of overwhelming missile defense systems..
 
So what is the general consensus on tonight's speech? I see psp made a very general prediction above about Trump just trying to put lipstick on this pig of a failure. I think we all know that. He's been trying that ever since he thought unarmed civilians were going to rise up and overthrow their Army with rocks as Trump requested. There was a .00000001% chance of that being attempted and not enough room to add enough zeros for that being successful.

Is his speech maybe scheduled 30 minutes to an hour after an assault on the small island? Or just more TACO market manipulation and adding another temporary bandaid on the market collapse and oil price surge?

Predictions?
 
Callatoroy said:
So are you ok in 5 years handing that regime nuclear bombs? Because that is exactly what that agreement did.

Israel (nor SA, UAE, Jordan, Iraq, etc) surely wouldn’t be ok and we would be in a much worse situation with a much higher threat of nuclear weapons being used. It’s existential to Israel. Not sure how people don’t understand how fucked it would be for the US to green light Iran’s development of nukes

My intent in criticizing the agreement wasn’t an indictment of Obama. Pub and dem presidents have kicked the can down the road since the revolution and all share in the blame in not addressing the Iran nuke problem. Trump decided to not kick the can anymore for a multitude of reasons. Reasonable people can agree with it or disagree. I happen to agree. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has done since and sure as hell doesn’t mean I agree with what has come out of his mouth. He has made it much harder than he had to but that is how he rolls. We disagree on the decision to act, but I have many of the same concerns you do.
Click to expand...
No American should give one fuck about Israel. Israel is one our greatest international foes. Their governance is no better than the other madness in that region.
 
Callatoroy said:
So are you ok in 5 years handing that regime nuclear bombs? Because that is exactly what that agreement did.

Israel (nor SA, UAE, Jordan, Iraq, etc) surely wouldn’t be ok and we would be in a much worse situation with a much higher threat of nuclear weapons being used. It’s existential to Israel. Not sure how people don’t understand how fucked it would be for the US to green light Iran’s development of nukes

My intent in criticizing the agreement wasn’t an indictment of Obama. Pub and dem presidents have kicked the can down the road since the revolution and all share in the blame in not addressing the Iran nuke problem. Trump decided to not kick the can anymore for a multitude of reasons. Reasonable people can agree with it or disagree. I happen to agree. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has done since and sure as hell doesn’t mean I agree with what has come out of his mouth. He has made it much harder than he had to but that is how he rolls. We disagree on the decision to act, but I have many of the same concerns you do.
Click to expand...
Trump did not make a decision to do something for that reason AND we'll start kicking the can tonight.
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Trump did not make a decision to do something for that reason AND we'll start kicking the can tonight.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming that was his justification. I'm claiming it is "A" justification. There are many potential reasons for now. Thinking now was the closest to revolution there would be, Israel acting alone (to me which is the most important), thinking he would get allied help, the fact they knew when the executive team would all be in one place (which turned out to be true), etc.
 
ChileG said:
It has been explained several times why this isn’t true.
Click to expand...
Disagree. The sunset provisions in 2031 allowed iran to engage in advanced enrighment. Any agreement that is contingent upon iran's promises with limited inspection with advanced notice accomplishes nothing.
 
Callatoroy said:
Disagree. The sunset provisions in 2031 allowed iran to engage in advanced enrighment. Any agreement that is contingent upon iran's promises with limited inspection with advanced notice accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...
there was plenty of time to renegotiate terms or enact a completely new agreement but your god king shat on (2018-2025) and then lit the bargaining table afire (2026).
 
Callatoroy said:
Disagree. The sunset provisions in 2031 allowed iran to engage in advanced enrighment. Any agreement that is contingent upon iran's promises with limited inspection with advanced notice accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...
www.pbs.org

Fact-checking Trump's comments that a 2015 deal gave Iran the right to nuclear weapons

President Donald Trump repeatedly said the 2015 nuclear deal he pulled out of gave Iran the right to secure nuclear weapons. PolitiFact rated the statement False.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement in 1970. That wasn’t going away in 2031.

It was always the intention to extend, amend, or renegotiate the terms of the agreement as necessary. Even Trump said when he tore up the agreement that he would renegotiate a new deal.

Unfortunately, Trump removed every reason why the Iranians would negotiate with us in good faith in 2018, and made things exponentially worse last month. In my opinion, of course.
 
Last edited:
BlueSteel said:
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately none of this will matter a bit to Trump supporters. To them, he's an idol. The man could literally launch our entire arsenal of nukes at Russia, thus ending the world, and his supporters would happily go down in flames chanting "U-S-A..U-S-A..." to their graves. All to own the libs.
Click to expand...
The Trumpiest/Modiest neighbor I know was all last night “dude had no plan man. We are so fucked. Netanyahu had him by the balls”

I just smirked.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
So what is the general consensus on tonight's speech? I see psp made a very general prediction above about Trump just trying to put lipstick on this pig of a failure. I think we all know that. He's been trying that ever since he thought unarmed civilians were going to rise up and overthrow their Army with rocks as Trump requested. There was a .00000001% chance of that being attempted and not enough room to add enough zeros for that being successful.

Is his speech maybe scheduled 30 minutes to an hour after an assault on the small island? Or just more TACO market manipulation and adding another temporary bandaid on the market collapse and oil price surge?

Predictions?
Click to expand...
My prediction is declare victory following the most successful military operation of all time and announce that a ground invasion isn’t necessary at this time.

Trash NATO of course, suggesting the US may with draw from the pact.

Time allowing, discuss failures of 2020 election.

Hold comments about the ballroom until tomorrow.
 
1moretimeagain said:
My prediction is declare victory following the most successful military operation of all time and announce that a ground invasion isn’t necessary at this time.
Click to expand...
And the reality that we all paid billions upon billions for bombs and deployment that create a long term economic shock, murdered schoolgirls, inflict a massive injury to US geopolitical leadership, and give an Iranian regime heavy incentive to 1) by hook or crook get a nuke and 2) they have the power to force Trump to kneel.
 
ChileG said:
www.pbs.org

Fact-checking Trump's comments that a 2015 deal gave Iran the right to nuclear weapons

President Donald Trump repeatedly said the 2015 nuclear deal he pulled out of gave Iran the right to secure nuclear weapons. PolitiFact rated the statement False.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement in 1970. That wasn’t going away in 2031.

It was always the intention to extend, amend, or renegotiate the terms of the agreement as necessary. Even Trump said when he tore up the agreement that he would renegotiate a new deal.

Unfortunately, Trump removed every reason why the Iranians would negotiate with us in good faith in 2018, and made things exponentially worse last month. In my opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
This is a very naive take, and was fact checking trump's comments. trump's comments are usually not fact based. And, based on iran's participation in the 1970 npa treaty which they treated like trash. They were actively pursuing nukes while a member of the treaty. That treaty was meaningless to iran. Why people think anything that relies on trusting iran is meaningful is absolutely insane. Read the underlined. The entire thing was based on iran "being a good actor and doing the right thing" Even inspections were very limited and required weeks notice. For promising to play nice it gave them access to approximately $50 billion that they poured into terrorism. I don't understand people jcd'ing that "agreement" when common sense says it was a terrible deal.

1) What the JCPOA actually said (legally)​

  • Iran permanently committed not to “seek, develop or acquire” nuclear weapons under the deal and the broader nonproliferation system.
  • Some monitoring and inspection measures continue well beyond 2031 (into the 2030s–2040s).
👉 So on paper, the deal never gave Iran permission to build nuclear weapons at any time.

2) What changes around 2030–2031 (the “sunsets”)

Many of the strict technical limits expire:
  • Limits on uranium stockpile and enrichment levels end around 2031
  • Iran can expand use of advanced centrifuges starting earlier (mid-to-late 2020s)
  • After 2031, Iran could enrich uranium without the earlier caps, potentially even to weapons-grade if it chose
👉 In practical terms:
After 2031, Iran could have a much larger and more advanced nuclear program with fewer constraints

Bottom line
  • The JCPOA did not authorize Iran to get nuclear weapons after 2031.
  • But it allowed major restrictions to expire, meaning Iran could legally expand its nuclear program in ways that might reduce the time needed to build a weapon if it chose to break its commitments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top