Political fallout and arguments regarding the US-Israeli action against Iran 022824

160,983 Views | 1926 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Keyno
Gordo14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag87H2O said:

I dont' think Trump went into this hungry to take action. But he saw that Iran has been a real threat to this country to varying degrees now for almost fifty years, they refused to negotiate in good faith, they flat out said we will not give up our nuclear ambitions and you can't stop us, and he likely knew that Israel was going to hit them again.

He did what good leaders do. He assessed the situation, weighed the variables, saw the unique opportunity to solve the Iranian/middle east problem, adjusted his plan, and did what he believes was in the best interest of America and took action.

Time will tell, but I think he did the right thing. Is there risk? Absolutely. But it is a once in a century opportunity to change the entire balance of power in the region, take out one of if not the worst enemy on the international stage, and tilt the balance of power in favor of America.

It's sad that many posters here are so warped by their dislike for Trump that they are actually pulling for us to lose.


All of the information made public suggessts Iran DID want to negotiate.

https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/09/iran-offers-to-dilute-enriched-uranium-in-exchange-for-full-sanctions-relief

" Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, said the possibility of diluting 60% enriched uranium "depends on whether all sanctions would be lifted in return", according to the official IRNA news agency."

The framework that Iran was willing to concede to was pretty substantial and was a framework that future negotiations could build off of. Multiple other news sources also claim that diluting to 60% enrichment was on the table. This is a significant concession.

I think it's important to reflect on Iran's geopolitical strategy for a moment. Iran has always used their leverage that they "could" get a nuclear weapon as a bargaining chip. The evidence suggests, in my opinion, that they were not actually aiming for a nuclear weapon - they were aiming leverage. Because the truth is they could easily have gone nuclear for a long time. They've done all the hard parts already. But the problem with the conflict as you've completely undermined Iran's strategy. The next time we hear of nuclear bombs in the context of Iran it will be a nuclear bomb test. Which means nuclear proliferation and militarization across the Middle East is coming.

Even if you view military action as necessary here, I really struggle to see how this plan would ever solve the nuclear Iran problem. Furthermore, I don't see any planning for absolutely obvious response that Iran would shut down the strait and start targeting other Gulf Countries. We didn't fill up the SPR at $60 crude. We didn't move key military assets to the Middle East. And I really think it's incredibly naive to think that there wasn't any space for negotiation. Especially given that just a year ago we bragged that we had completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program. This administration did not make a case to the American people why this was necessary. He didn't make the case to Congress. He didn't make the case to allies that we don't need, but we do need, but we don't need, but you aren't helping. I'm not going to accept blind faith in whatever Trump does as a justification.

And now we're unsanctioning Iranian oil - even in America. Incredible.

This will undermine America's interests globally across many dimensions. It's an acceleration of global trends, but it's making the trend deteriorate at an order of magnitude faster. Nuclear proliferation, escalating conflicts, and a collapse in American global power will make the world a much worse place.
Gordo14
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Just to add more color to consequences. Forward inflation projections are 5.3% and the trend is higher.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well said.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Negotiate what exactly?

Maybe you are not familiar with the concepts of laws and agreements within Islam. They are not morally held to any agreement with an infidel. This is exceptionally true of the 12ers and Shia.

You really think we can work out a lasting deal with absolute maniacs who chant and state day after day, hell their entire government is built around death to infidels.

Saying we should have negotiated with Iran further is being a sorority girl in Florida thinking you just need to talk it out a bit more with Ted Bundy after he has cut you a thousand times.

Please, please learn about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

They want death for us. So we are just giving them what they desired against you, me and other Americans.

Closing of the strait was anticipated and part of the plan. It's working out as we had planned. The concept is to tell the ones who depend on that oil to step up and help. We are self-sufficient top to bottom in the United States.

Apologies if you have not already got your $250 65" TV from Alibaba, the RCA may cost $1,000 next year. Not trying to be too coy here, but quivering over a bump in inflation is nothing but a DNC talking point. It's not based in reality and ignores many things.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Forward inflation was 5.2% per yesterday's graph drawn by Baylor economists.

If it bothers you, fill up a bunch of gas cans and order 10,000 meals from Patriot's Supply Depot.

I would rather pay a bit more than have my family vaporized.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They didn't want to negotiate in good faith as they claimed all their missile were short range.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Breaks your heart don't it. He looks like he is disappointed they did not reach a deal. Such a shame Trump acted so aggressively.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Liars lie


I'm Gipper
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Huh, it's almost like Trump did have a plan… go figure.

Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Part of the off ramp to blame it all on BiBi

I'm Gipper
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The evidence suggests, in my opinion, that they were not actually aiming for a nuclear weapon - they were aiming leverage.


And it is that, an opinion.

Among the clerics, wanting a weapon is absolutely not, "just for bargaining leverage". At least that's my opinion.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The leverage angle makes no sense. As you suggest, they had an easy punt. Drop the nukes, hand over the Uranium, allow endless inspections, and we will buy your oil. Hell, we would even let you continue to treat your women worse than goats.

For Dems, they must really really really really really hate women.

You XX and don't want XY in your sports? Sit down and shut up you chromosomal privileged *****.

Want to be a mother, stay home, raise your kids? You must be a right wing terrorist and we are going to flag you.

Want to be a lady who raises their kids according to their correct gender? Nope, them kids are hours and we will chop and mutilate their genitals.

Want girls in radical Muslim countries to not be beaten, raped, killed, tortured, disregarded? You just need to sit down and mind your business whilst we appease these radical clerics in their pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

Instead they lap up whatever Reddit, BlueSky, and CNN put out. As if it were gospel (which being degenerate pagans they have no concept of gospel regardless).
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

Part of the off ramp to blame it all on BiBi

Why not. Dems and loop Nick Fuentes types now believe BiBi the antichrist and the guy in charge until Mahdi returns will be their savior.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

Part of the off ramp to blame it all on BiBi

I thought he was dead?
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

Im Gipper said:

Part of the off ramp to blame it all on BiBi

I thought he was dead?

To be honest, I actually thought he died a decade or so ago. He is another cockroach of Israeli politics.

As with Trump, I think he is the right leader at the right time. Decisive and pushing.
Dungeon Crawler Carl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This little exchange should calm markets on Monday......










Good news is that the missiles on both sides are fairly accurate and only targeting structures adjacent to the actual reactors (for now).
Dungeon Crawler Carl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Ag with kids said:

Im Gipper said:

Part of the off ramp to blame it all on BiBi

I thought he was dead?

To be honest, I actually thought he died a decade or so ago. He is another cockroach of Israeli politics.

As with Trump, I think he is the right leader at the right time. Decisive and pushing.

You forgot to add lying too.

Still waiting for you to answer that question from the other day.....
Ag4life80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The expectation that an Iranian will negotiate in good faith is laughable. Basically, their credo should be 'if you ain't lyin', you ain't negotiatin'. Absolutely the most unethical people on the planet.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dungeon Crawler Carl said:

flown-the-coop said:

Ag with kids said:

Im Gipper said:

Part of the off ramp to blame it all on BiBi

I thought he was dead?

To be honest, I actually thought he died a decade or so ago. He is another cockroach of Israeli politics.

As with Trump, I think he is the right leader at the right time. Decisive and pushing.

You forgot to add lying too.

Still waiting for you to answer that question from the other day.....

What the heck are you talking about? If you want me to answer a question, just ask. Don't throw some vague reference from days ago.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag4life80 said:

The expectation that an Iranian will negotiate in good faith is laughable. Basically, their credo should be 'if you ain't lyin', you ain't negotiatin'. Absolutely the most unethical people on the planet.


You CANNOT negotiate with the radical sects of Islam. Period, the end.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Huh, it's almost like Trump did have a plan… go figure.




So we didn't need them then when they refused we didn't want their help anyway and now we're getting help we didn't want?

Whatever, so long as gas prices go back down, I'll take it.

Imagine prices going back down while we continue going forward with taking out the regime in Iran. It doesn't get any better than this.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
sts7049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
we clearly had no plan for the SOH. I don't see how you say otherwise
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gordo14 said:

Ag87H2O said:

I dont' think Trump went into this hungry to take action. But he saw that Iran has been a real threat to this country to varying degrees now for almost fifty years, they refused to negotiate in good faith, they flat out said we will not give up our nuclear ambitions and you can't stop us, and he likely knew that Israel was going to hit them again.

He did what good leaders do. He assessed the situation, weighed the variables, saw the unique opportunity to solve the Iranian/middle east problem, adjusted his plan, and did what he believes was in the best interest of America and took action.

Time will tell, but I think he did the right thing. Is there risk? Absolutely. But it is a once in a century opportunity to change the entire balance of power in the region, take out one of if not the worst enemy on the international stage, and tilt the balance of power in favor of America.

It's sad that many posters here are so warped by their dislike for Trump that they are actually pulling for us to lose.


All of the information made public suggessts Iran DID want to negotiate.

https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/09/iran-offers-to-dilute-enriched-uranium-in-exchange-for-full-sanctions-relief

" Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, said the possibility of diluting 60% enriched uranium "depends on whether all sanctions would be lifted in return", according to the official IRNA news agency."

The framework that Iran was willing to concede to was pretty substantial and was a framework that future negotiations could build off of. Multiple other news sources also claim that diluting to 60% enrichment was on the table. This is a significant concession.

I think it's important to reflect on Iran's geopolitical strategy for a moment. Iran has always used their leverage that they "could" get a nuclear weapon as a bargaining chip. The evidence suggests, in my opinion, that they were not actually aiming for a nuclear weapon - they were aiming leverage. Because the truth is they could easily have gone nuclear for a long time. They've done all the hard parts already. But the problem with the conflict as you've completely undermined Iran's strategy. The next time we hear of nuclear bombs in the context of Iran it will be a nuclear bomb test. Which means nuclear proliferation and militarization across the Middle East is coming.

Even if you view military action as necessary here, I really struggle to see how this plan would ever solve the nuclear Iran problem. Furthermore, I don't see any planning for absolutely obvious response that Iran would shut down the strait and start targeting other Gulf Countries. We didn't fill up the SPR at $60 crude. We didn't move key military assets to the Middle East. And I really think it's incredibly naive to think that there wasn't any space for negotiation. Especially given that just a year ago we bragged that we had completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program. This administration did not make a case to the American people why this was necessary. He didn't make the case to Congress. He didn't make the case to allies that we don't need, but we do need, but we don't need, but you aren't helping. I'm not going to accept blind faith in whatever Trump does as a justification.

And now we're unsanctioning Iranian oil - even in America. Incredible.

This will undermine America's interests globally across many dimensions. It's an acceleration of global trends, but it's making the trend deteriorate at an order of magnitude faster. Nuclear proliferation, escalating conflicts, and a collapse in American global power will make the world a much worse place.

In short, whose tactics would you choose as a roadmap:

1) Chamberlain's appeasement
2) GWB's strategy of convincing congress and getting involved in a ground war
3) Trump and Osami's strategy of a surprise attack to cripple the enemy without warning.

You pretty much have to decide between one of these three. If not, what would your strategy be, and how would it differ from all three of the above?

1) Your analysis ignores the fact that the Iranian strategy of overwhelming Iron Dome with thousands of rockets being made monthly is a relatively new strategy, and Israel and the US destroyed that capability as part of this strike. Publicly admitting that this was a key consideration isn't helpful because it makes Iron Dome look weak. But, we did publicly admit that this was a key strategic decision. To pretend that this was 100% about nukes is incorrect. It is the easiest thing to understand, but it wasn't that one dimensional. The fact that you didn't address Iran's increasing conventional missile capabilities is proof that this topic is too much minutiae for the general public to digest in the age of 155 word arguments.

2) If you don't think that Israel and the US have continually thwarted Iran's attempt to go nuclear, you are either being obtuse or you are ignorant about how effective our counter strategies have been. If Iran could have gone nuclear before now, they absolutely would have. They were not holding back.

3) How many times has Iran agreed to inspectors and whatnot and then crawfished on their promises. At some point, you have to assume that Iran's "negotiating" was nothing but buying time for them to develop nukes. This is like Seinfeld trying to get his car at the rental place. You see, Iran knows how to NEGOTIATE a peace deal, they just don't know how to FOLLOW the peace deal. And that's really the most important part of the negotiation: the following. Anybody can just negotiate to not develop nukes. If Iran understood the importance of the following part, they wouldn't have had nuke capabilities for us to destroy in the first place.

3) Trump very specifically said that we had to attack with surprise for the attack to work and minimize American casualties. All of the criticism towards GWB for putting boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are warranted. A different strategy is to attack with an element of surprise and minimize casualties. It worked well for Japan in Hawaii. Making the case to Congress publicly would have destroyed the element of surprise. Is making the case for war to Congress worth 7,000 American deaths and 50,000 American wounded? If we would have just taken out Saddam under the cover of night without warning Congress that we were going to invade Iraq, most of those casualties could have been avoided.

4) If this strike means that America is going to lose it's one dimensional dominance of global security.....GOOD! That would be good for Americans if Europe invested some cash in helping ensure global security.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sts7049 said:

we clearly had no plan for the SOH. I don't see how you say otherwise
You get this from where?

If you think any war plans for Iran did not include the SOH, that's just misinformed, naive or something.

Sometimes in combat it is necessary to draw the enemy out. I am an accountant, but I have watched enough Gomer Pyle to know how this works.


You really believe they are in the situation room planning the initial attack and Trump says "don't cares about the straits of harmoozee shaboozey. I have a filet o fish waiting on me and Melania is ready to put on a fresh coat of natural orange."

You can hate Trump all you want, but please do not try and trot out the "Trump has no plan". Unless perhaps you are Chuck Schumer and you just lie to hate on Trump.

I imagine there are a hundred minor plans and a dozen or so major plans to deal with Iran laying claim to Hormuz. What Trump has done is to get others to actually step up. I know thats a hard concept for those who wanted to send Ukraine nukes in the early days, but war tends to be a little more complicated.

I cannot stop you from saying it, but I will call out just blatant TDS for what it is. There is ZERO evidence pointing to Hormuz not being part of the plans.

Reminds me of the kids who believed Iran's defense minister when saying they don't have and would never use mid-range ballistics. Today, guess what they did earlier today.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Spin, there are things that cannot just be laid out in the public eye.

I was not alive in the 1940's, but I imagine they were not telegraphing comprehensive d-day plans to the AP and BBC. That's what people are asking for when they want a plan.

Lots of 5-star Reveilles thinking that since it's not how it works in Call of Duty it must not be real.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

No Spin, there are things that cannot just be laid out in the public eye.

I was not alive in the 1940's, but I imagine they were not telegraphing comprehensive d-day plans to the AP and BBC. That's what people are asking for when they want a plan.

Lots of 5-star Reveilles thinking that since it's not how it works in Call of Duty it must not be real.


Good point.

I forget what is said isn't always what is meant, many times for very good reasons.

Never played call of duty myself. I'm more of a Mortal Kombat guy
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

Huh, it's almost like Trump did have a plan… go figure.




Trump says come help
Nobody says OK
Trump says **** off. I'm done here
All of a sudden, these folks express interest.
sts7049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
because we have allowed Iran to completely control the SOH and they still do now. we could have been prepared at the beginning by providing the shipping insurance backing before we started bombing, by the time we chimed in everything had already ground to a halt. we were behind the curve. and we had no assets to provide any sort of protection to vessels either. for weeks now the whole Persian Gulf has been at a virtual standstill except for what Iran lets pass through
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sts7049 said:

because we have allowed Iran to completely control the SOH and they still do now. we could have been prepared at the beginning by providing the shipping insurance backing before we started bombing, by the time we chimed in everything had already ground to a halt. we were behind the curve. and we had no assets to provide any sort of protection to vessels either. for weeks now the whole Persian Gulf has been at a virtual standstill except for what Iran lets pass through

Did Iran sink our Navy and eliminate our Air Force?

Just take a moment and realize that Iran's reactions were planned for, allowed to happen, and then dealt with as part of the normal course.

Watching bing-boop-bing maps of vessels not moving and trying to guess the insurance markets is not war planning. With a simple stroke of the pen Trump could guarantee against any losses. But he didn't. Must be incompetence, because it can NEVER be strategy with Trump, amiright?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sts7049 said:

because we have allowed Iran to completely control the SOH and they still do now. we could have been prepared at the beginning by providing the shipping insurance backing before we started bombing, by the time we chimed in everything had already ground to a halt. we were behind the curve. and we had no assets to provide any sort of protection to vessels either. for weeks now the whole Persian Gulf has been at a virtual standstill except for what Iran lets pass through

Do you think that Trump taking all of Venezuela's oil had zero to do with our negotiating position to get other people to help us with Iran?

I mean, we would be in much worse shape with the SOH closed if we hadn't taken down Murduro.

But, since we did take the South American oil, now it is Europe and Asia that is going to feel most of the pain about the SOH being closed. If you disagree look at the divergence in price between Brent and WTI.

Or, do you disagree. Would the US be in better or worse shape about asking for help on the SOH if Murduro was still selling most of it's oil to China? Would the divergence of Brent and WTI been exactly the same without all of that Venezuelan oil? If so, how else do you explain the divergence if not for the basis cost between Europe and the US with the SOH closed?
sts7049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't even mention trump, but you sure seem quite sensitive about it. I'm talking broadly about our military strategy. we have been entirely too reactive in regards to the SOH. our navy isn't at risk there because they aren't in the strait.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Remember before Maduro was in NYC prison it was "Trump has no plan, regime change, endless wars" then proceeded to "OMG he supports Maduro's commie sidekick" then "when are the elections" and now just silence because Trump's plan thus far have worked out pretty damn well.

Leftist will literally off themselves at Trump's passing just so they can protest and sing dumb songs OUTSIDE the pearly gates. No way in hell they getting in, unless they repent.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sts7049 said:

I didn't even mention trump, but you sure seem quite sensitive about it. I'm talking broadly about our military strategy. we have been entirely too reactive in regards to the SOH. our navy isn't at risk there because they aren't in the strait.

Would you say that taking out Murduro before we took out Iran to be completely reactive? Or do you think that these two things happening so close together and the order in which they happened to be completely unrelated?
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
sts7049 said:

I didn't even mention trump, but you sure seem quite sensitive about it. I'm talking broadly about our military strategy. we have been entirely too reactive in regards to the SOH. our navy isn't at risk there because they aren't in the strait.


Quick question, who is Commander in Chief of the military?

Did you complain here about Biden's "below the horizon" or whatever dumbassery his strategy was after Abbey Gate?

I suggest some time watching shows about how our boats can indeed shoot from far away.

There was some concern regarding the decomm of the wooden hulled mine ships and poor performance of the new anti mine ships. Figuring out low flying kamikaze drones. As mentioned, sometimes you need to draw the enemy out.

I am not sensitive about a ******* thing. But I do wish folks would learn some of the basics of how things work. That's a broad comment.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.