Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

USA Impacts of bombing Iran

So, here's my Conspiracy Theory. Given Trump's tell, when he hesitated - will he? Won't he? Who knows? ...coupled with the lack of a radiation leak at the bombing sites. Remember, Iran has been providing drones and missiles for Putin to committ war on Ukraine. Putin bought Iran some delay to move the enriched uranium out on trucks. Once Putin gave the all clear signal to Trump, that's when Trump called Go! on the raid. Iran was completely passive, and later claimed they were caught off guard.

Now Iranian consulates are up meeting the Godfather...errrrr Putin. How the next step will be orchestrated, I'm unsure, but somehow the current Iranian government is protected. Just sayin'
 
Duke Mu said:
So, here's my Conspiracy Theory. Given Trump's tell, when he hesitated - will he? Won't he? Who knows? ...coupled with the lack of a radiation leak at the bombing sites. Remember, Iran has been providing drones and missiles for Putin to committ war on Ukraine. Putin bought Iran some delay to move the enriched uranium out on trucks. Once Putin gave the all clear signal to Trump, that's when Trump called Go! on the raid. Iran was completely passive, and later claimed they were caught off guard.

Now Iranian consulates are up meeting the Godfather...errrrr Putin. How the next step will be orchestrated, I'm unsure, but somehow the current Iranian government is protected. Just sayin'
Click to expand...
That’s some conspiracy thinking for sure. But given all else around the Trump/Putin/BiBi/Ukraine/Iran/Whothefuckelseknows saga, it would not be surprising to me at all.
 
CFordUNC said:
Iran has been threatening to block the Straight of Hormuz since like 1980.
Click to expand...

They don’t even have to really block it. All they have to do is cause instability and fear in the region. Posturing hostilities is enough. That alone will cause Lloyds of London enough headache that they either won’t be able to insure the shipping vessels or that the war premium will be high enough that oil prices 📈
 
Duke Mu said:
So, here's my Conspiracy Theory. Given Trump's tell, when he hesitated - will he? Won't he? Who knows? ...coupled with the lack of a radiation leak at the bombing sites. Remember, Iran has been providing drones and missiles for Putin to committ war on Ukraine. Putin bought Iran some delay to move the enriched uranium out on trucks. Once Putin gave the all clear signal to Trump, that's when Trump called Go! on the raid. Iran was completely passive, and later claimed they were caught off guard.

Now Iranian consulates are up meeting the Godfather...errrrr Putin. How the next step will be orchestrated, I'm unsure, but somehow the current Iranian government is protected. Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Yea, that’s conspiratorial thinking but it’s also perfectly rational, given what we know about Trump and Putin, Putin and Iran. I questioned a few days back something to the effect of “when does Putin have to get involved?” vis-a-vis russias reliance on Iranian munitions. Your scenario answers that question, ie he’s always been a director of the kabuki.

Do I think that’s what’s going on? 40/60. I won’t firmly ascribe Putin puppeteering to Trump et al. when their astounding history of incompetence remains plausible - but I’m fully willing to see Putin behind damn near any Trump foreign policy position, as I truly do believe he’s a Russian asset.
 
Healing said:
Yea, that’s conspiratorial thinking but it’s also perfectly rational, given what we know about Trump and Putin, Putin and Iran. I questioned a few days back something to the effect of “when does Putin have to get involved?” vis-a-vis russias reliance on Iranian munitions. Your scenario answers that question, ie he’s always been a director of the kabuki.

Do I think that’s what’s going on? 40/60. I won’t firmly ascribe Putin puppeteering to Trump et al. when their astounding history of incompetence remains plausible - but I’m fully willing to see Putin behind damn near any Trump foreign policy position, as I truly do believe he’s a Russian asset.
Click to expand...
I don't buy some of the conspiracies floating around right now, including a direct Ukraine connection and certainly the idea that Israel intentionally ignored intelligence to allow 10/7 to happen. I do think, though, that in the days after 10/7, Israel created a plan not just to respond to Hamas but also to topple the Iranian regime. The plan was to knock out Iran's proxies first and then go directly after a weakened IRGC. In short:

1. Indiscriminately destroy Gaza to do as much damage as possible to Hamas, regardless of the civilian cost.
2. Take out the Hezbollah leadership en masse, thus rendering it ineffective.
3. Take steps to knock out the remnants of the Assad regime in Syria.

Then, once Trump was re-elected:

4. Get the US to take strong action against the Houthis.
5. Get the US to commit its bunker busters to an attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

If I'm right, it was a damn good plan and Israel has done a great job pulling it off (I'm commenting here on effectiveness, not on morality or wisdom).

The problem, of course, is that (unless I'm forgetting something) we have no prior examples of a Western-provoked regime change in the Middle East going well. Regime change can work (occasionally) when it's organic and internal, but every time we (including Israel here) try to make it happen, we end up with a disaster. So now, with all of this disruption well underway and the US fully engaged not just diplomatically but militarily as well, we have a ton of open questions.

1. What will happen in Gaza?
2. Will Hezbollah be able to reconstitute and reorganize in Lebanon?
3. Will the new guys in Syria be better or worse than the old guys?
4. What happens when the remnants of the Houthi militias get lucky and sink a US warship?

And most importantly --

5. What in the world is next for Iran?

Iran has been a problem for a LOOOONG time, so I'm perfectly fine holding out hope that once this all shakes out, the new world will be better than the old world. I just don't think that's at all inevitable, and we're now at a point where there will be a new world, whether we want it or not.
 
A new world likely without an Iranian half trillion dollar enrichment program to the benefit of the future. Sure sends a pretty strong message against nuclear proliferation
 
chrissteel said:
A new world likely without an Iranian enrichment program to the benefit of the future.
Click to expand...
I'd say an Iran loosely allied with the West, in the mode of Turkey, is the best benefit to the future. No reason that can't happen, although Saturday probably made it less likely. If it does, I'd have no problem with Iran developing a non-military nuclear program. It's a huge country with brilliant people. But I'll always agree weapons capabilities should be limited as much as they possibly can be, whether to Iran or any other nation.
 
lawtig02 said:
I'd say an Iran loosely allied with the West, in the mode of Turkey, is the best benefit to the future. No reason that can't happen, although Saturday probably made it less likely. If it does, I'd have no problem with Iran developing a non-military nuclear program. It's a huge country with brilliant people. But I'll always agree weapons capabilities should be limited as much as they possibly can be, whether to Iran or any other nation.
Click to expand...
I know it's not your main point, but Iran already has a nominally non-military nuclear program, ie they have a civilian nuclear plant. A cynic would say that it's very expensive window dressing for their military nuclear program giving them some cover as to why they're acquiring nuclear material, nuclear scientists and other dual use equipment.

On the other hand, I think they have three reactors at the current plant or maybe two with one more coming online with plans to build more at other locations, at least before the most current attacks. That's really unnecessary for window dressing.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I know it's not your main point, but Iran already has a nominally non-military nuclear program, ie they have a civilian nuclear plant. A cynic would say that it's very expensive window dressing for their military nuclear program giving them some cover as to why they're acquiring nuclear material, nuclear scientists and other dual use equipment.

On the other hand, I think they have three reactors at the current plant or maybe two with one more coming online with plans to build more at other locations, at least before the most current attacks. That's really unnecessary for window dressing.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I was just saying I'd be fine with them continuing that if we could get real assurances they aren't pursuing weapons. In other words, the 2015 agreement. But your point is a good one.
 
lawtig02 said:
I'd say an Iran loosely allied with the West, in the mode of Turkey, is the best benefit to the future. No reason that can't happen, although Saturday probably made it less likely. If it does, I'd have no problem with Iran developing a non-military nuclear program. It's a huge country with brilliant people. But I'll always agree weapons capabilities should be limited as much as they possibly can be, whether to Iran or any other nation.
Click to expand...
When i was in school in the 70's there seemed to be many iranian kids in chapel hill. You are right that are good people
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top