If this is accurate, I'd say BDA will show Fordow is dust.
Israel and Iran
- Thread starter TLDR20
- Start date
If this is accurate, I'd say BDA will show Fordow is dust.
Devildoc
Verified Military
Iran said they're considering blocking the Straits of Hormuz. They are doubling down on stupid.
Lol, apparently it didn't share on the slide I wanted. This is what I was talking about.
Kraut783
SOF Support
Brief on operation Midnight Hammer
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,038
While I may not have been a huge proponent of getting involved, I'm not losing sleep over the strike either. It's done, so now it'll be interesting to see BDA and subsequent impact of this action over the coming days and weeks. Was the strike as effective as we'd wanted? I believe this was a limited strike with no intention for a larger commitment. So, that's good.
I do appreciate the idea that the administration is following through on what it says and holding parties accountable. Iran was given opportunity and now sees consequences. There's probably a broader message here as well.
Also, OPSEC for this strike appears to have been good, based on the number of Dem heads in Congress that exploded
What options does Iran have left to respond? Close the Strait of Hormuz? Good luck with that.
I do appreciate the idea that the administration is following through on what it says and holding parties accountable. Iran was given opportunity and now sees consequences. There's probably a broader message here as well.
Also, OPSEC for this strike appears to have been good, based on the number of Dem heads in Congress that exploded
What options does Iran have left to respond? Close the Strait of Hormuz? Good luck with that.
Last edited:
Nah, they're just mad they weren't in the Signal chat group.
Same things that led to 9/11. Failure within the chain is always a possibility.
^ solid assessment.
The timing and specificity of intel warnings are also important. As much as I loathe politicians blaming everything on intel, sometimes it's intel's fault. Not sure if that's the case here; maybe there was in fact enough specificity to act, and those who were supposed to didn't. But somebody who is always starting some shit, starting some some kind of unspecified shit at some unspecified time and place is way different than OMG IN ONE HOUR THEY ARE COMING OVER THE WALLS IN MUTHAFUKIN GLIDERZZZZ!!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE ROLL THE MERKAVAS, MR. PRIME MINISTER!!!!!
Also, Hamas knows how the Israelis work. For years, they were testing boundaries and lulling their opponents into a lower state of readiness
That's why it's important to crack down on things while they're small, so they don't build up to this. It's similar to the situation in America; we ignore people pushing cops, so then they get emboldened and start throwing bottles. Then firecrakers. Then large rocks. Eventually it will be Molotovs and bullets. And people will wonder how we get it get to that level, just like a whole bunch of people wondered how the October 7th attacks could have ever happened.
Sometimes it's hard to absorb the enormity of a situation in the moment. Nothing this big, this well-organized, this complex, and this successful was ever even attempted AFAIK. Not by Hamas. It could have been hard to tell in the opening hours that this was something more than a performative push against the wall and a more-intense-than-usual projective barrage.
Also, a whole lot of Israelis, particularly liberal lawmakers, thought that their pacification campaign was working. "The Palestinians are just like us, they want the same things we do. Look, we can all get along, we're giving you jobs, trusting you to come into our country, our homes; we're spending millions on educating your children, this is DEFINITELY going to work. There is no need for further bloodshed." Meanwhile, Hamas: "Hold my keffiyah, Jew dogs."
I think there is going to be a lot of noise about this, partly from peoples' genuinely held beliefs that this is a bad thing, but more often because this was a clear win for Trump, and we just can't have that.
I think secretly, if not overtly, a lot of the people in the world who really matter, including (and especially) normies like us, will see this as a good thing in the long term. Reasonable people will disagree, and that's OK too.
757
Member
Simplest option would be re-authorizing militias attacks on positions in Iraq. Second simplest option would be directly launching against those bases from Iran.
I think the first option is almost a given at this point. The second is a possibility because of our direct involvement in attacks on nuclear facilities.
Guess we’ll see what happens.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Now this is some weird shit.
Scared individual who is afraid of sleeper cells.
Still pathetic.
It's harder to target the militias, so I agree, that might be the reaction. As for the second option, IDK.
They know now--if they didn't before--the lethality of any threat coming from the Trump administration. They're looking at the damage to their air force, their depleted missile stockpile, their nuclear facilities, the impact of the sanctions, damage wrought by the IAF, and they're hearing Hegseth promise devastation on a large scale if they attack US forces.
Do they invite it? A reasonable person would be soiling himself before giving the US the slightest excuse.
But...Hard to guess what will come out of that turban.
Last edited:
I was (thankfully) off my phone and engaging in real life most of this weekend, so a lot of the narrative shifting I avoided. Which was cool.
I don't care if this is seen as whataboutism or just a fact that you can't deny- choose your own adventure.
I would have preferred if we waited for a negotiated agreement on striking Fordow and the other two sites. The admin made the decision, I support the president, and just like all the other breathless events- I am just gonna wait. Everyone has been wrong from inflation, to the impending doom of the stock market and trade and about everything else, so I don't know if the strikes were "good" or "bad".
All that being said- in 2016 alone, Obama dropped 72 bombs per day for a year. 26,171 bombs in 7 countries. We didn't declare war on any of them; he did so unilaterally and without congressional approval. Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.
It's not whattaboutism, it's precedent.
I don't care if this is seen as whataboutism or just a fact that you can't deny- choose your own adventure.
I would have preferred if we waited for a negotiated agreement on striking Fordow and the other two sites. The admin made the decision, I support the president, and just like all the other breathless events- I am just gonna wait. Everyone has been wrong from inflation, to the impending doom of the stock market and trade and about everything else, so I don't know if the strikes were "good" or "bad".
All that being said- in 2016 alone, Obama dropped 72 bombs per day for a year. 26,171 bombs in 7 countries. We didn't declare war on any of them; he did so unilaterally and without congressional approval. Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.
It's not whattaboutism, it's precedent.
And Clinton launched cruise missiles.All this hand-wringing about war powers isn't about war powers. It's all about opposing Trump in anything he does.
Last edited:
Kraut783
SOF Support
Or...Obama orders an helicopter insertion into Pakistan and kills UBL...
War Powers allows action with key members of Congress being advised within 48hrs....and up to 60 days of operations, with an additional 30 days for withdrawal....
Hearing all the crying from congress members is just BS...they know the rules.
War Powers allows action with key members of Congress being advised within 48hrs....and up to 60 days of operations, with an additional 30 days for withdrawal....
Hearing all the crying from congress members is just BS...they know the rules.
