|
Originally Posted by mahogany bob
(Post 12050243)
Posts above all very gloomy !
Possible negotiating stance we will stop bombing you IF you keep shipping lanes open even the mad mullahs must like that ? could AND stop supporting terrorism be included or is that out of control / impossible to negotiate ? back to square one except Iran’s military threat severely downgraded - nuclear threat put back years ? and revolution more likely in time ? so a partial victory for Donald ! and gives us time for technology to cheaply counter the drone threat here’s ( naively ) hoping ! You would expect that the highest value targets in Iran have been hit, perhaps more than once, and now the U.S. and Israeli's are working down the list of lower value targets. In contrast, Iran's regime has survived so far, and seemingly has a supply of drones and missiles to keep hitting their neighbours. All of whom are working through their stocks of expensive interceptors. Why would Iran want the war to stop, potentially to restart whenever the U.S. and Israel want, but with better drone and mine countermeasures? The downsides of this war dragging on for Iran do not seem significant now. The downsides of this war dragging on for the U.S. economy, world economy and the economy of Iran's neighbours is massive. And this is not just oil and gas pushing up energy bills. The world economy is addicted to debt (news to no one here!), especially in shaky private credit markets and the AI buildout. Inflation results in higher interest rates, which pushes up returns on government bonds, which pushes institutional money there rather than into private credit (debt). Which can bring the whole house of cards around private credit down. The U.S. economy only grew in 2025 because of the AI data centre buildout! Even if the U.S. decides it won't increase interest rates, governments around the world will, and that will mean an outflow of money from the U.S. This is all simple, first order economic impact, not just all the hidden and complex stuff. If I were an Iranian leader, I'd just let this play out, allow the pain of oil & gas price increases and the risk of inflation to rise, and the pain of stock markets declining and the U.S.'s MAGA base getting unhappy. Then go for a comprehensive ceasefire that rolls back sanctions on Iran with a renegotiated Nuclear agreement. If the Iranian's are particularly ballsy, ask for reparations to fix the damage to civilian infrastructure like oil refineries. The longer this goes on, the side that is winning is not the one dropping bombs with impunity. |
If the proposal was to stop bombing if shipping is allowed free transit, is that not simply a return to where things were before this started?
If Iran accepted that proposal how does the USA explain to it's citizens what has been achieved? Possibly more importantly how does the USA explain to it's gulf allies how this is a positive net result. Especially as there's been some suggestions that those same allies might be a tad miffed at being drawn into this without consultation. |
Three cargo ships were attacked in the Persian Gulf overnight, per UKMTO alerts. Two suffered damage, and the third is ablaze, with the crew abandoning ship. https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2e6d6472c3.png |
Mentioned on the news last night that the bombing of Iran’s oil infrastructure by Israel came as a surprise to the USA!
|
Saw this on social media.
If true, all the pain S.Korea suffered when this was installed back in 2017 was for nought. It's my ball, I'm taking it away! https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7f30a61f90.jpg |
This that was struck and abandoned in the Gulf is the The “Mayuree Naree”, a Thai-flagged bulk carrier hit 11 nautical miles north of Oman.
The attack ignited a fire which is still burning. 20 crew members were rescued by the Omani navy, 3 others are reported as either remaining onboard/missing. The weapon has not been identified, but the low hull damage is consistent with a surface kamikaze drone or a fast-boat attack. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....738b4710c.jpeg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9d979130b.jpeg |
Looking at the weapons being withdrawn from Korea makes me wonder why any country should buy American weaponry in future.
|
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...e-middle-east/
10 Additional French Warships to be Sent to the Middle East Announced by French President Emmanuel Macron on the 9th of March, 10 additional French warships are being pledged to the Middle Eastern theater amidst the ongoing war with Iran. The 10 additional ships will be tasked with escort duties for commercial ships attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz, a key choke point for global oil supplies transiting to and from the Gulf states, responsible for supplying significant portions of the world’s total oil demand. The deployment also coincides with Iranian strikes on NATO and EU partners at RAF Akrotiki Airbase in Cyprus and Iranian ballistic missile intercepts over Türkiye by the U.S Navy. French Aircraft Carrier FS Charles De Gaulle (R91) and it’s escort has been dispatched to assist defensive efforts in the Middle East. USNI reports that the French carrier strike group, which has been spotted speeding towards the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, consists of Horizon-class Frigate Chevlier Paul (D621), Spanish Navy Frigate ESPS Cristóbal Colón (F105), Dutch Frigate HNLMS Evertsen (F805), an additional FREMM type frigate, a fleet oiler, and an attack submarine. Aquitaine-class Frigate Languedoc (D653) has also dispatched to assist in the defense of Cyprus along with supplemental French air defense and counter-drone forces. In addition to Naval assets, French Air Force Rafales have participated in defensive operations over the UAE, primarily geared towards downing Iranian one-way attack drones. The mission these 14+ French Vessels will partake in has been stated to be “purely defensive” in nature, with only escort and counter-air operations on the table. A more limited mission set will thus bar these vessels from joining in strikes carried out by Israeli, Emirati, and American forces, but will still provided much needed protection for merchant shipping, which has almost ground to a halt in the strait. The deployment of this many vessels marks one of the highest periods of availability in the French Navy, as editor-in-chief Xavier Vavasseur notes that the main French Navy base at Toulon is almost completely barren. A French LHD Dixmude set sails on 17 February 2026 for the Indo-Pacific as part of the “JEANNE D’ARC 2026” mission. The vessel and its frigate escort are now off the coast of Somalia, participating in ATALANTA. An Horizon type air defense destroyer is currently participating in operation ASPIDES in the Red Sea while a FREMM frigate is likely still deployed near Hormuz…… https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/20...agon-departure ROYAL NAVY WARSHIP HMS DRAGON SAILS FOR EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN MISSION |
Originally Posted by Geriaviator
(Post 12050377)
Looking at the weapons being withdrawn from Korea makes me wonder why any country should buy American weaponry in future.
The US moving their own asset to a different theater isn't any thing new. It would be the same as moving a couple of destroyers that are home ported in Yokosuka (Seventh Fleet) into the Arabian Sea (Fifth Fleet) for an operation. (Example: the US moved most of the Seventh Fleet ships to the Persian Gulf for Desert Storm) Were that an asset acquired and owned by the South Korean government, it would still be there unless the Korean Government chose to aid Jordan/UAE or whomever. In short, TURIN is trolling again and you bit. From the Guardian, a few years back... Early on a spring morning, camouflaged trucks carrying the US-made terminal high-altitude area defense (THAAD) missile-defence system rolled into Seongju, as the country’s government ignored protests from locals who said the deployment would make them a target for Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles. The conservative government in Seoul, backed by Washington, insisted that Thaad was the most effective way to locate and destroy North Korean missiles before they threatened the South and the 28,500 US troops stationed there. The deployment also angered China and Russia, which said Thaad’s powerful radar could compromise their security. |
Would a full scale ground invasion of Iran be successful in removing the regime?! Logically you would capture all their main bases, missile production etc, the IRGC would end up becoming terrorists, you would however be able to build a new Iranian government and a new Iranian military who would be able to fight back. Difficult to see the regime ever taking power again though there would likely be ongoing terrorism.
Such an invasion is going to be very costly in terms of lives and money. Could Gulf Arab states be persuaded to take part? Going forward if the regime is left in power it will continue to be a problem in the region and likely feel emboldened as it has survived, likely eventually getting nukes. Either the west backs down and leaves the regime in place as it is too tough to remove or go for total regime change. The regime in Tehran always seemed like way more of a threat to me than Gaddafi, Assad or even Saddam yet all those were removed while the most dangerous regime was left alone. Iranian friends have actually asked me why it is their regime was left alone and free to murder them while the west would get involved just about everywhere else. |
Pedant moment...
I thought it was the Strait of Hormuz and not the plural Straits of Hormuz. I see that many here are calling it "the straits." There are also the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Magellan for example, and one hears mention of the former Straits Settlements. Am I perhaps in error? |
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred
(Post 12050432)
Pedant moment...
I thought it was the Strait of Hormuz and not the plural Straits of Hormuz. I see that many here are calling it "the straits." There are also the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Magellan for example, and one hears mention of the former Straits Settlements. Am I perhaps in error? |
Allow me to preface this by saying I have no sympathy for the regime in Tehran but, in the context of the current conflict, it is worthwhile examining its position against that of the Israel)US coalition.
Iran's primary war aim could reasonably be defined as : Maintaining its current form of government. The sacrifice of much of its military and infrastructure in pursuit of this aim is, therefore, considered rational. The question then arises, "how does Iran achieve this?" Iran has been preparing for this was for a generation and has adopted a defence strategy based on "mosaic defence" which we have seen in effect ion recent days. In its simplest form this is a layered defence which prioritises layered resistance with heroic resistance against a militarily superior enemy. Military objectives will include raising the security and economic costs to the aggressor to unacceptable levels, destruction of supporting infrastructure, closing the Straits of Hormuz and successful attacks on Israel. The list goes on. Expect terrorist attacks to follow. In contrast the war aims of the Israel/USA coalition are less clear and, likely, different for each co-belligerent. It's probably fair to discard DT's statement of "unconditional surrender". I suspect the military aim of the US was something along the lines of , " Eliminate Iran's ability to pursue conventional or non- conventional warfare". Israel would likely have added, "The destruction of the Islamic State." So where does this leave us? I suspect the current nastiness to continue for an indeterminate time, Israel and the USA will continue to successfully attack Iranian military and infrastructure. Iran will continue to make things costly for Israel, the USA and the GCC nations. The price of gasoline in the USA (and the rest of the World) will rise and the Republican Party will fear defeat in the mid term elections. The GCC states and most of the rest of the World - with the notable exception of Russia - will pressure the USA to end the conflict. Trump will declare victory based on the damage caused to Iran and Iran will have achieved its aim of maintaining its regime but will be even more certain that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons to prevent future attacks. |
Small numbers here but some signs the UAE's intercept rate is decreasing and that the air defense network is fraying. 25% of Iranian drones made it through today which is an all-time high since the onset of hostilities. (Previous high was 10% of drones hitting UAE on March 3.) The hit vs. intercept rate for ballistic missiles and drone attacks since Feb. 28 for the UAE through today. Today is not like prior days. |
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-eas...e-war-ede3cd91
Seems that China and Iran get along in the Strait. So much to a CVN in "control". |
To Lars above’s “Trump will declare victory based on the damage caused to Iran and Iran will have achieved its aim of maintaining its regime but will be even more certain that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons to prevent future attacks.”
May I add, “and with future oil revenues, they may elect to simply buy nuclear weapons from any of several possible countries, such as the DPRK.” |
If the US are not going to launch a ground invasion to remove the regime then the US and Israel should target and destroy all regime oil infrastructure. No Iranian oil should be able to leave port again. If the regime is stopping everyone else shipping oil they should certainly not be able to ship their own oil. Also a total air and sea blockade of Iran. Are Iranian ports and airports still open? How about destroying the runways all port facilities. Are the US and Israel actually in this to win or just wasting time?!
|
Ronald Reagan See the the above linked Wall Street article. Iran shipped in the last 6 days more oil through the Strait, mainly to China as in a usual week.
|
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
(Post 12050426)
Would a full scale ground invasion of Iran be successful in removing the regime?
Could Gulf Arab states be persuaded to take part?
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
(Post 12050426)
Going forward if the regime is left in power it will continue to be a problem in the region
Same Stuff, Different Decade.
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred
(Post 12050432)
Am I perhaps in error?
Originally Posted by larssnowpharter
(Post 12050444)
Iran's primary war aim could reasonably be defined as : Maintaining its current form of government. The sacrifice of much of its military and infrastructure in pursuit of this aim is, therefore, considered rational. {the rest in a spoiler}
Spoiler
1. Harming Iran and thus doing damage to hezbollah by reducing Iran's capacity to support Hezbollah 2. Reduce Iranian capability to launch ballistic missiles at Israel. The concurrent operations in southern Lebanon, and Lebanese government's declaration last week that Hezbollah's military operations were illegal, though the state currently lacks the capacity to disarm the group on its own, aren't getting as much coverage...but it is directly related to the Iranian threat (via proxy)to Israeli security that has BFA to do with oil in the Gulf. |
My 5c worth is that it is not impossible that we will see China and the US working together to keep the Strait open and flowing.
It is not the first time that we have seen tanker wars going on in the area. Here is an interesting article about it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.