I once saw a very cynical definition of GW 1 as “When Japan hired NATO to get Kuwaiti Oil back” .
Doonesbury perhaps.
AI.

• The "Japan Hires NATO" Scenario: During the Gulf War, Japan faced significant international pressure for failing to contribute troops to the U.S.-led coalition. While Japan did not "hire NATO" as an organization to get Kuwaiti oil back, the tension between Japan's pacifist constitution and its reliance on Gulf energy led to intense political scrutiny, which Trudeau satirized.
• 
  
• Financial Support: Japan was a major contributor to the Gulf Peace Fund, providing a total of $13 billion in financial aid for the coalition's efforts and related expenses.
• $13 billion in 1991 is equivalent in purchasing power to approximately $31.52 billion in 2026, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index data.
• Mine Sweeping Operation: Following the end of the conflict, Japan dispatched six minesweepers from the Maritime Self-Defense Force to the Arabian Gulf to assist with restoring safety to the region.

That sounds like POTUS speaking. If things go well and are successful, the president takes much personal credit and hale the US military as the greatest in the world. A failure....well that's instantly a collective fail with criticism of allies not turning up to support, their equipment dismissed as "toys" and their troops having stayed back from the frontline.

We can read POTUS like a book and all who support him :ugh:

Reports coming in that the Strait is 'fully opened' now after Iran (supposedly), makes a deal - Apparently, it's linked to the Isreal/Lebanon ceasefire...

US-Iran war live updates: Strait of Hormuz declared ‘fully open’ by Iran | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site for latest headlines

Iran war live: Trump hails Hormuz Strait opening as Lebanon ceasefire holds | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera

Iran says Strait of Hormuz is 'open' as Trump says US blockade will continue until deal reached - follow live - BBC News

Bullshirt, Bonkey.
your post demonstrates that you cannot.

You - and quite a few others who post here - demonstrate an utter failure to get what that utterer of things is doing.
I've been paying attention to that approach to politics and political rhetoric since about mid-2015.
Huh? What? You doubtless ask. Answer in the spoiler.



This matters, in the information age, because information is a weapon of war. A lot of you commenting here have shown time and again that you have not grasped that to its fullest.

During the first term (where Iran got a lot of hot air directed at it, and the "deal" which they cheated on (60% enrichment, anyone?) was canceled, and their top IRGC leader was blatantly assassinated in Iraq, the rhetoric maintained a similar style.
I had begun to view it - the sloppy and oftern incorrect rhetoric - as a careless case of a deception plan as far back as 2018 while the engagement with North Korea was begun (and ultimately abandoned).

But remember: the explicit choice to evade, or to do an end around of the traditional media and use Twatter/SoshulMedja as a means of getting messages out, was firmly established by then: 2018.
As was the carelessness with, and indifference to, facts.

That was a well established pattern by the end of that four year era, both as regards international security matters and local matters.

The predecessor and successor reverted to traditional styles that most of us were used to...styles perfected over the course of the previous 40 years. (1986-2016).

With four years off to perfect a particular messaging method, and to establish a series of aims and goals, that idiosyncratic method of using information as a weapon - both fact and fiction - has not changed.
Indeed, it has been turned up to about 11. (Credit to Spinal Tap for that one).
And you are one of its billions of targets.

What that means for you, for me, and for anyone interested in how the military does stuff during the information saturation age - we are now beginning the second quarter of the 21st century, and we've had about 30+ years to learn what Information Age Warfare is all about - is to understand that
1. there is no plan without a deception plan. (which is old Red Army doctrine that remains more or less true)
2. saturating the airwaves with noise is a method of aiding and abetting one's deception plan.
3. Due to the established trait of "unreliable narrator" that DJT established 11 years ago, you have to presume that anything that comes out of his mouth is a part of the deception plan until otherwise proven to align with fact.

Again: fact is the exception, not the rule, in this method of using Information Age tools.

There are a variety of people who have the ear of any national leader: be it the Grand Ayatollan, the Prime Minister, the Party Secretary, or the President of Country X, Y, or Z. The leaders pick (for a variety of reasons) whom to listen to on a given day, and then shape their messages -- remember, messaging and information are weapons, and the Information War is 24/7 regardless of whether bullets are flying and bombs are dropping -- in order to have an effect.

4. Massing of Effects.
That's one of the principles of war, in the Information War as much as in any kinetic war. Massing effects isn't just related to artillery, small arms fire, air dropped ordnance, or missiles. It also includes the Psyops piece and the Information piece.
Mass the Effects on the chosen targets.
I say again, you are a target. I am a target. We are targets.

Adide: albatross, welcome to the Woke, Politically Correct 21st Century.
"Kinetic Effects" is a term that will continue to be used whether you like it or not, and whether I like it or not, since the Information Age war has everyone -- military professionals and Every One Else (that is most of the planet) -- as a target.
Information Age Warfare, 101.

5. Whatever comes out of the mouth of a political leader in war, you are advised to do the following:
a. get out your box of salt
b. add a few grains.
c. or add a tablespoon full.

You are a target in their information campaign.

You are welcome for the primer in Information Age Warfare.

The leaders of Iran and the US have been slinging any number of lines of BS since about 28 February, as has the leaderr of the other party to this war, Israel.

How is your Integrated (Hot)Air Defense network doing? Mine's healthy, but I suggest that you upgrade yours.

In simpler terms: if you take anything that DJT says about the current conflict at face value, you've just shot yourself in the foot.

It is SOP in many parts of the world to blame (or occasionally credit) the USA for any and all actions taken on the behalf of the UN or NATO that the US leads (and having the most powerful military, the US will normally lead).
This was true in the Korean war, it was true in Kosovo, it was true in Libya. Bonkey is simply repeating the lie.

BTW, kudos Lone Wolf - that is perhaps the best explanation of the current POTUS I've seen. Most politicians play fast and loose with the facts - this one has simply perfected it.

@tdracer: suffice to say that I prefer GHW Bush's (aka Bush 41) style and approach to both natonal security and international collective security.
Sux to be me, I guess.

@albatross: yeah, Japanese support to Desert Storm was quite the bonus, much discussed in our geostrategy modules at staff college.

I hardly take anything from him at face value. Deception and inconsistency are two of his hallmarks. He uses them on everyone, Americans included.

Trump is saying that the strait of Hormuz is “totally open” - but the US blockade against Iran remains in place. He is also claiming the USA is to take possession of Iran’s processed uranium and take it back to the States.

Iran obviously disagrees.

Quote:

---

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/...467633535?s=20

---

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9f0774ee8.jpeg
​​​​​​​

Must you naysayers not appreciate what the United States (alone) has accomplished against Iran? Would you prefer a ready and cheap supply of petrol or a ready and cheap supply of gamma radiation?

In time you might thank us.

- Ed

Are you sure what the US and Israel have done has reduced the risk of nuclear Iran, or just reinforced their determination, as well as made other nations see the value in having nuclear weapons?

I would be glad to say that the US has accomplished something worth doing. What is it that we have accomplished, actually? Granted, thousands of strikes have been conducted, thousands of targets successfully destroyed. These may contribute some desired outcomes, but that's not clear. The cost of this effort in several categories will last a long time, including flesh and blood. What objectives presumably sought will really last a long time as well? One thing that is uncertain, regardless of objectives accomplished is how this military action will end and on what terms. Some, mostly his supporters, have suggested that the President is a great deal maker. I don't see how you make a deal at all, let alone a good one, when the story changes every sunrise. The President has repeatedly made bad deals even in his own interest, many of which he avoids accountability for.

The hell that’s rained down upon Iran is a resultant of attempts to become a nuclear state. I think that’s the lesson most nations will take away.

Totally agree with you. However, for any weapons to be effective and achieve the aim(s), those weapons must be deployed and used appropriately in a cold and calculated manner.

The real problem I have is I simply don't think the bloke in the WH welding his "Information Weapons" has the remotest clue what he's doing with them and that even his grasp on his Aims is tenuous!

On the 11th January, Trump told the Iranians to "keep protesting, help is on the way...". To me, this indicates that regime change was the primary aim of the attack.

Only after this failed and the protesters were slaughtered, was the WMD justification dusted off again (where have we seen that before...)

Low average, I suspect you are correct in that he thought it sounded like a good idea to support the protesters back in Jan .... except they had to wait a long time for that help - by which time, as you say, many were now dead. And, of course, "regime change in Venezuela" had been effected about a week beforehand (3rd Jan) so "regime change" was still "flavour of the self-congratulatory hour" in the WH.

So was the delay in "Op Epic Chaos" caused by the time it takes, at short notice, to cobble together another go at Iran for a bit more "regime change" post-Venezuela? And could the WMD "aim" being dusted off again be more of an admission that the June 2025 missions had not achieved what was needed so another crack at that could be tacked on to "rescuing the Iranian people" bit without people really noticing? And, of course, Netanyahu jumped at the chance to join in the melee!

So there are links but quite how coherent and pre-meditated such links are is debateable. They give more of a feel of "convenient happenstance" rather than lazer-like long-term strategic focus. And, again, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" comes in to play as outlined in this summary of the Venezuelan adventure which talks about some of those consequences, some of which will worry the US and, as we now know, most won't.

Meanwhile, from an article today, in the Straits of Hormuz, Tankers and container ships u-turn. Seems people are being very cautious. Now that seems to be an excellent plan if you are bobbing about in the Oggin! :ok:

You almost are trying to make it sound like you think there is a plan and strategy in place from POTUS and his team and the bumbling and daily incompetence is a deliberate cunning plan?

And yet, there is no verifiable indication that Iran has given up on its aspirations to be a nuclear power.

It’s all well and good for the USA to be the biggest bully in the playground but it doesn’t seem to know how to behave when the little kid who USA has just battered keeps getting back up and continues doing what he has always been doing.

I have no desire to see Iran get nuclear weapons and I am full of professional admiration for all the US military - I will let others ruminate on what I have not said.

...............

Pakistan Navy has joined the Chinese, Indian and US navies in the Gulf. Not sure who else is where by now....

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5578e4b664.png

I am doing no such thing. Suggest you change the lens in your specs.

I personally disagree with this latest attack on Iran, because it is my sense that it has been a matter of prioritizing Israeli security over critical US national interests.

If, as noted by someone a few posts back, the "regime change" theme is the plan (of that I am unsure) then the problem of timing and geography made that a non-starter before the first bomb dropped. The thousands and thousands who would and could stand up have been killed or jailed. (And the previous Grand Ayatollah was already getting close to the end of his run, as noted by Mid East experts for the last two years).

If the aim was to further reduce Iran's armaments - which is what was being discussed (as hosted by the Omanis) right up to the point of the bombs beginning to fall - I suppose that one way to reduce their armament stores is to get them to fire a bunch of them. :confused:

There were some pics on CNN the other day that showed footage of various Iranian work parties trying to dig missiles and missile launchers out of the rubbled/blocked locations that had been hit...at some point, those caves will be dug out and some of the "lost" armaments will be recovered and able to be deployed again.

The only consistent theme that has come out of DJT on Iran since his first term is that the nuclear deal before his term was rubbish (and the 60% enrichment evidence did show that they were indeed cheating) and that a new deal (that he can take credit for) must be put into place before normal relations are restored.

Iran, for their part, has of course pushed back on this...the regime has been consistent in its pursuit of a nuke program regardless of which agreements are, or are not, active. The Iranian regime has the advantage of not changing its leadership very often...they have had one change with the first Ayatollah died, and they had a recent change when the longer serving second Ayatollah died. He was in power for about 37 years. The US changed administrations six times over that period, and needless to say changed directions on Mid East policy a few times during that period.

So what is the aim?
(Note: I am deliberately not adding into this the security of Arab PG allies with whom the US has various deals and relationships, since their positions are subject to change regardless of what a given US administration does...recall Biden's efforts to treat KSA reigning monarch as a pariah?)
Beyond some general "security in the Persian gulf" sound byte that's muddy.
Note also that security on the Arabian peninsula has a direct impact on security in East Africa/Horn of Africa...and Sudan has been in a civil war for about 4 years...various players among the Gulf States are involved.

As far as I can parse the aim...the aim is something vaguely related to Iran's nuclear posture, and their collection of long range missiles that can reach outside of the Persian Gulf - since that is what was under discussion in February before the bombs began to fall and the missiles began to fly. (Which is similar to what was under discussion in June of last year before the bombs began to fall for 12 days).

"Bomb them back to the negotiating table" has been an effective move before, in certain circumstances. (The "Christmas Bombing" of North Viet Nam being one, the NATO 70+day bombing of Serbia are the only two that come to mind).

Is this the best way to go about it?
I don't think so, but as I've mentioned before, nobody in DC is answering my calls.

"If you won't make a deal I'll bomb you" is as close to a coherent message as I can dig out of the noise.

I sometimes feel that the inconsistency of messaging is deliberate, and other times I think it is based on chaos mongering as a habit.

Filtering signal out of the noise is quite frankly harder with this group than with any previous administration - including his first one - since there is so much noise. And as I noted in a different thread, there are a variety of people whose names you don't know who have the President's ear. Who gets to talk to him last has an impact on what utterances are made. (Per people who worked for him in the first administration).

On an operational note: from the WSJ...

Really all that’s in the public realm since this go around is Iran’s bombastic statements of continued efforts towards getting the bomb for Allah. What they are actually doing on a daily basis towards that goal is unknown. As far as the getting knocked down/getting up cycle, certainly not optimal but absent an enormous commitment of blood and treasure to physically purloin the HEU from its underground lair, there isn’t much to stop the Iranians from initiating the next cycle of whack a mole. The UN as a whole and many member states individually have committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, at this point talk nor strongly worded UNSC resolutions will achieve the goal. Either we accept Iran as a nuclear armed state or we don’t and match our collective efforts towards that outcome.

Salute!
Thanks, Westy. You have the simplified the required international policy, Westy, except defining one important aspect.

" The UN as a whole and many member states individually have committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, at this point talk nor strongly worded UNSC resolutions will achieve the goal. Either we accept Iran as a nuclear armed state or we don’t and match our collective efforts towards that outcome."

What is missing?
ENFORCEMENT.
Gums sends...

Wait what?? Suddenly its the UN's collective problem to sort out??! After all the likes of Trump and his supporters have said about this institution?

Given the way the UNSC vote on the Straits of Hormuz went the week before last, I think we can safely file this under "Extreme Wishful Thinking"

The UN laid down a marker against Iran acquiring a nuke. Doing so was either a feel good moment which lacked the resolve and capabilities to ensure it or they mean business and will stop Iran from building one. Clearly it’s the former and not the later, leaving the mandate to the US to do so. So yes, this is a UN problem as much as anyone else’s.

Hmmm. Dunno.
a) I don't see the slightest proof that Iran was now only weeks away from having a working nuclear bomb and
b) If they really were, they still are. The massive bombardment of the last 6 weeks hasn't been able to flatten a lot of the much less protected conventional weapon systems- I wouldn't expect that they did any damage to the well protected Nuclear stuff. The only difference being that Iran is now massively more motivated to finally and urgently get 'the Bomb'.

You have access to bomb damage assessments or are you relying on media reports to arrive at that conclusion?

Cheers, Lonewolf_50, that all makes a lot of sense to me too! :ok:

And how do you achieve enforcement? Well, by verification of Iran's current weapon development status would be a good starting point. That can only be done by inspections and I think an Iranian invite to the IAEA of unrestricted access to all of its sites has also been kicked down the road a good few years. Despite all the bombs and bullets and rhetoric from both sides, who can honestly say what the state of Iran's progress towards getting a nuclear weapon is today? At best, this latest show of US force has only kicked the can down the road a few years, hardened Iranian resolve to obtain nuclear weapons and further hardened Islamic views towards USA.

...........
ISW:

Remembering of course that after June the BDA said the nuclear programme had been "obliterated".

People believe what they want to.

This seems to be one of the 'collateral damages' of this adventure. Power in Iran as now apparently completely and openly shifted over to IRGC. Peseshkian had been sidelined already quite early, now also the offical negotiators as well. Not good.

How can the IRGC Navy attack ships in the Strait - I thought their Navy had been sunk and was at the bottom of the sea??

Israeli military officials are preparing for the ceasefire to potentially collapse, and have updated target sets in Iran, this time including the Iranian power grid - Maariv News

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cf80cf0646.png

Sky News reports a large Iranian-flagged vessel (cargo ship) tried to run the US blockade by refusing to stop, and was fired upon by USS Spruance, which holed the engine room. US Marines have boarded.

Iranian media is reporting that Tehran has rejected taking part in a new round of talks with the US in Pakistan.

The statement, published by Iran's IRNA news agency, comes just hours after US President Trump announced he would send a delegation to Islamabad to resume talks on Monday evening, local time.

Reference the seizure of the Iranian ship…..

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ddee331cc.jpeg

Did they bring along tugboats, or is the ship left to drift in the strait?

Video of the USN action.

Considering the source is the Trump administration, it’s highly likely this is a fabricated lie.