shiftyandquick said:

---

We're in a war, and the Hegseth is going around the county participating in political rallies to aid GOPers in their primary elections.

Bizarro-world.

I guess running a war is a part-time job.

---

At least he's not calling Tehran or Beijing to promise he'll give them a heads up if we plan to go hot again.

We gathered at the Pentagon for our monthly prayer service.

“Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” — James 4:8 pic.twitter.com/oz9Yq9u63Q

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) August 20, 2026

I've been pleasantly surprised how well he has done in his job, frankly. "I particularly liked 'defend the homeland from communists.'"

This 👇 https://t.co/fCFD9mL3Q6

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) August 19, 2026

Are we though? We haven't launched any strikes in almost a month.

Could argue it actually is part-time.

shiftyandquick said:

---

We're in a war, and the Hegseth is going around the county participating in political rallies to aid GOPers in their primary elections.

Bizarro-world.

I guess running a war is a part-time job.

---

They do have things called "phones" nowadays. It's crazy what you can do now without having to be in one specific place.

It's the art of delegation. Just make sure competent people are doing their job. And you, as the boss, can go do political rallies, tiktok exercise videos, and play golf during the workday. Not all the time, but part of the time. A little signal chat here and there to tidy up loose ends.

If Pete had magic underwear.

bobbranco said:

---

If Pete had magic underwear.

---

Didn't think he was Mormon. I know he has a lot of kids though.

UTExan said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not a fan of our current strategy but that's quite the take. You really think an Iran with nuclear weapons would make the region they've already destabilized almost solely by themselves for decades while not having nukes.....more stable?

So Iran getting nukes would suddenly mean they no longer fund multiple terrorist proxy groups all over the M.E. and they would just focus on making Iran better and leave all of their neighbors alone? They would leave Lebanon and let the Lebanese run their own country? They would leave Yemen and let them run their own country?

---

These people think that Israel is the destabilizing force in the area, and so in their minds, yes, a nuclear Iran would stabilize the region. Take out Israel, take out the problem.

---

History shows that since Israel was founded in 1948, basically every country in the region has been at war with them at various/multiple times. Sometimes many of them at once. Lebanon notably has been at war with them since the beginning.

---

Stop killing Israelis and they stop killing you. Egypt and Jordan figured this out.

---

That is rich that you brought that one up. Egypt is guaranteed something like 1.5 billion in yearly foreign aid from the United States which began right AFTER Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 with the "Camp David Accords". Furthermore, Jordan is guaranteed something like 1.5 billion in yearly foreign aid from the United States which began right AFTER Jordan made peace with Israel in 1994 with the "Wadi Araba Treaty".

To this day, both Egypt and Jordan are the top earning guaranteed recipients of US foreign aid (behind Israel and Ukraine, of course).

Back when Trump first got in in this second term, when he was campaigning on ending all foreign aid because it was "America First", guess who was exempt. Yep, you guessed it- Israel, Egypt, and Jordan

So its a little more nuanced than how you are trying to describe.

Imagine how much faster this would have happened if Democrats hadn’t been siding with Iran for 5 months. https://t.co/vz1aEGh82R

— David Marcus (@BlueBoxDave) August 23, 2026

Needs to keep going, of course.

Quote:

---

Iran appears to be losing its grip on the Strait of Hormuz while traffic through the critical waterway has exploded by nearly 400% over the last two weeks as ships increasingly use a US-backed corridor to cross.

Nearly 200 ships navigated the strait last week, up from 150 the previous week and just 40 two weeks earlier, according to data from the UK Maritime Trade Operations Center.

The surge brings total traffic along the passage route to about 20% of pre-war levels, through which roughly 20% of the world's seaborne oil flowed in peacetime.

---

Many of the comments at the thread made me laugh.

The latest from the Joint Maritime Information Center - which is run by the @CMF_Bahrain - on ship transits. https://t.co/1KjquXqOHD pic.twitter.com/lKMpIPfJq8

— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️ (@mercoglianos) August 23, 2026

23 AUG 2026#LANDSAT 🛰️📷
Strait of Hormuz
(thx @eos_da) @UK_MTO Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) update as of 22 AUG:

1. First Chart: Inbound & Outbound Cargo ships & Tankers.
These are essentially overt, "non-facilitated" transits. Direction and vessel type is… https://t.co/uaDgtxZt0Y pic.twitter.com/f1Hr40EZhj

— Charlie B (@supbrow) August 23, 2026

Bessent just gave a lengthy press conference announcing Operation Economic Outcast to basically shut down anything and anyone doing business with Iran. And there is going to be sanctions against a major bank to be named this week.

Going for the kill shot now.

I prefer a military solution directed solely at Iran

U.S. SQUEEZES IRAN BUT SPARES CHINA

The U.S. launched “Operation Economic Outcast”, sanctioning more than 60 entities tied to Iran’s oil, nuclear and missile activities.

However, Washington avoided targeting major Chinese banks and companies, despite China buying over 80% of…

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) August 25, 2026

everyone except china, apparently?

Rewards! We were just discussing/lamenting why we weren't doing that last week I think. $10 million for information on Vahidi and Abdollahi IRGC leadership. More sanctioned entities.

Quote:

---

They also named seven individuals allegedly "responsible for Iran's military activities and procurement efforts, including directing the use of conventional weapons against U.S. forces and neutral neighboring states" and "advocating for defense partnerships with Iran's international partners that would contravene U.S. sanctions."

Quote:

---

MOHAMMAD BAQER ZOLQADR (ZOLQADR) was the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council [....]
ALI ABDOLLAHI (ABDOLLAHI) is the commander of Khatam ol Anbia Central Headquarters, a U.S.-sanctioned Iranian government entity responsible for joint and wartime operations. [....]
AHMAD VAHIDI (VAHIDI) is the Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC [....]
SAYYED HOSEIN MAJID MUSAVI EFTEKHARI (EFTEKHARI) is the Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, the entity responsible for the IRGC's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program. [....]
SEYYED MAHDI FARAHI (FARAHI) is the Deputy Defense Minister for Industrial and Research Affairs at MODAFL (Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces and Logistics)
AMIR HATAMI (HATAMI) is the Commander of the Artesh, Iran's conventional military.
REZA TALAEI-NIK (TALAEI-NIK) is the spokesperson for Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.

---

Those are the big names.

They were also sanctioning multiple companies that they said engaged in the illicit trade of Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products, including the "dark fleet" that has helped deliver millions to the regime. Cutting that off is a critical thing. "Today's action targets all the nodes of this illicit trade," the State Department said.

---

About time.

sts7049 said:

---

U.S. SQUEEZES IRAN BUT SPARES CHINA

The U.S. launched “Operation Economic Outcast”, sanctioning more than 60 entities tied to Iran’s oil, nuclear and missile activities.

However, Washington avoided targeting major Chinese banks and companies, despite China buying over 80% of…

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) August 25, 2026

everyone except china, apparently?

---

I would wait for another source but it wouldn't surprise me. That account throws **** at the wall all day every day and many times is wrong.

yeah, it's hard to tell what the details are exactly. we have named china broadly in this but hard to tell to what level this goes with them.

any real sanctions would almost certainly have an immediate response by them no doubt

In listening to Bessent live yesterday on CNBC when this was announced, he was pretty absolute and definitive on this including everyone. So, carving out China after the fact would be a divergence from the announcement but not unexpected.

United Arab Emirates cuts off trade with Iran, nixing billions — why it could have ‘crippling effect’ on Tehran. Read today's cover here: https://t.co/tzhRTpltDO pic.twitter.com/i3sToWxf6v

— New York Post (@nypost) August 25, 2026

Pretty funny cover.

Fretty punny cover you mean.

The approach here would be to hit minor Chinese players first before going after a big fish / coi.

***** slapping as major bank in China would cause a global disruption and though it may come, it's probably not the best first move.

Bessent and Trump are clear this applies to everyone.

Satellite imagery shows at least 15 simultaneous ship-to-ship oil transfers happening in the Gulf of Oman today, moving roughly 25 million barrels of crude from nearly every regional producer except Iran.

The transfers are part of the workaround system that emerged after the… pic.twitter.com/WUiKYZseYt

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 25, 2026

Progress, even though it's just a work-around.

Ship to ship transfers are SOP in gulf of America out of Corpus Christi.

Dubai will not like this.

Treasury promised to sever every economic lifeline Tehran has left and finally end the threat of the Iranian regime. We also warned that Iran’s enablers cannot continue to enjoy access to the U.S. dollar and the global financial system. Banque Misr UAE decided to find out the… https://t.co/bMPIrlbrFF

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) August 28, 2026

But they are pathetic so I really don't care.

ETA: Egyptian bank too:

Treasury targets Egyptian bank in bid to throttle Iran https://t.co/bPV3zXba3u

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) August 28, 2026

Big money financial types are not stupid. This is going to have a ripple impact.

They indicated they would start small and give banks a chance to address issues.

Bessent promised a big name by weeks end. Do one of the banks above qualify or maybe expect a bigger name? Not sure.

When he says big name I expect it to be known to most who pay any attention to such and even some that don't.

Americans now trust Trump/GOP more than DSA-Dems on Iran war. Gee, I wonder why?

You mean the terrorism apologia wasn’t popular? https://t.co/GeGS5dPtbB pic.twitter.com/wQy2pHrmMM

— Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD (@TonerousHyus) August 31, 2026

Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

AGHouston11 said:

---

Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

---

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.

I think some of these bizarre reactions such as now not understanding the objectives in Iran are due to the Dems running out of debunked talking points.

Economy is going great, they must clamor that we are teetering on the Great Depression on only the genius of the DNC / DSA can unlock our economic prosperity.

Trump scoring clear progress in Iran and their response is now "muh forever wars" and "what's the point in Iran" shows continued desperation to craft a winning narrative for November.

We may differ, but I commend your response above. Spot on.

Appears Putin has joined MSM, the DNC/DSA and many a concerned moderate on standing with Iran.

AGHouston11 said:

---

Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

---

It's disingenuous to keep calling it a war when we trade a bomb once a month. Technically we are still at war with North Korea, but we don't call that a 75 year war. Let's at least be real with what is actually going on.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

---

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.

---

Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

Phatbob said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

---

It's disingenuous to keep calling it a war when we trade a bomb once a month. Technically we are still at war with North Korea, but we don't call that a 75 year war. Let's at least be real with what is actually going on.

---

It's Trump's war. The commander in chief calls it a war.
It just sounded better when he was claimed it would be over with some time ago.

AGHouston11 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

---

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.

---

Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

---

Continued outrage at the objectives not being clear is revisionist history. They've always been pretty clear even when reality punches you in the mouth and causes one to have to divert and address which almost always happens in conflicts. I don't understand why this card keeps getting played.

Your comment on why we are still involved is separate and a valid argument based on Trump's own campaigning. I've been personally frustrated at the ongoing nothingness of this deal for a while now. Our strategies at this point to meet the original objectives is to simply wait them out, develop long-term alternatives to Hormuz, and hope they fail internally.

IOW, I think you are confusing the strategy to meet the objectives with the objectives themselves. The former will change based on conditions on the ground. If we are changing objectives throughout the conflict then that is another matter and problematic but that hasn't happened while the former has.

I have no problem with what has happened with Iran or how it has been executed. Iran has been a huge thorn in the side of us and the world for most of the last 50 years and dealing with them now is better than yet again kicking the can down the road.

The frustrating part is Trump's packaging, or rather, how people want and expect to consume their information. This is just how Trump operates on all things, not just Iran. What you get from him rarely has anything to do with reality, it is always the front-man sales and posturing version of everything.

I've always hated that about Trump, but honestly we can pretend that every every other country doesn't do that, but they do, and always have. And our news is not, nor has it ever been, about packaging and serving the truth. So the people complaining about how he presents what we are legitimately doing a good job with big picture both have a point but also are ignoring that it's not abnormal for any leader of a country to do.

Short version, you want a grocery store purchased - truth in advertising world event where you get exactly what you see on the label printed in advance that just doesn't exist in real life.