4 ms·

Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003 -- it also has extremely motivated backers in China, who are eagar to use it the wa

Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003 -- it also has extremely motivated backers in China, who are eagar to use it the way the US uses Ukraine: a means to deplete a peer competitor of their military resources. The best outcome for China here is the US blowing its assets in Iran. The propaganda at the moment is israel is winning, iran isnt using missiles because of "air superiority", and the US is able and willing to detroy the nuclear capacity via the air. All of these claims are false. Iran's capacity to strike back remains vast using only its own resources. What the US has been dragged into by israel is an amazing opportunity for a US peer competitor (china) to grind down its arms -- it would be remarkable if China doesn't take it. It can hardly afford the US to be a well-armed protector of Taiwan. The iranian regieme's apparent hesitation at the moment is not as extreme as russia's on the first days of the ukraine war, and look at where we are now. This apparent hesitation is waiting for israel to deplete its missile defense, waiting for a more stable intelligence environment (presumably moving assets, etc. around out of uncovered israeli operations), and most of all, waiting for a moment to strike off-guard.

bamboozled 1y ago
The propaganda What propaganda ? I’ve seen the footage of Iran firing flak cannons somewhere in the direction of f35s. Not a single Israeli plane has been lost…where is the lie ? Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003* why assume they want the current leadership to remain in charge? Why assume they wanted nukes ? You mention China grinding down its enemy ? What about the fact the air force is actually performing real missions being and gaining real experience ? Is a few bunker busters going to grind down the USAF ?
- mjburgess 1y ago
  Neither you or I, and esp. not the media, have any access to facts on the ground. All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them. All we can work backwards from are the most reliable facts we have before the war, about capabilities on the ground. We know the rough size of the iranian missile programme, of the country, economic, various military assets and similar. We can work backwards from this to ask, "what would we be able to see had Israel achieved its claim re iran" -- and we're talking extraordinary levels of destruction in iran, across the country, and so on. We don't have any evidence of operations of that scale even taking place, let alone having been successful. It is most likely, at the moment, that at least some alleged air force victories by israel are actual missiles they've issued from neighbouring states on the land. However, either way, all of this is speculation. What can be stated with near certainty is that any picture presented in the media is an extremely careful creation of the propaganda arms of our states, and not a credible military briefing. Our only access to reliable inferences is purely rational and hypothetical: what are X's aims, what are their claims, what are they claimed strategies, what are their capabilities and so on.. and then what would we see *if*...
  - pliny 1y ago
    >All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them The source of most of the videos from both sides is random social media users. Even the videos and info from the IDF I would regard as credible, since they released similar videos and info from the Lebanon operation last year that was consistently corroborated by evidence from social media (there was no internet blackout in Lebanon so every IDF strike on an urban area had multiple videos from different perspectives).
    - mjburgess 1y ago
      Social media users placed by iran's full missile defense systems? Social media users at the bottom of 100m of granite? Social media users amongst the iranian barracks? I called the war for Russia ~2 years ago, just as the "counter offensive" by Ukraine was starting. Go back, if you wish, to that time in the news and find exactly what english-speaking western median, and social media, was saying. What is the picture you get, of Ukraine and its counteroffensive, delivered to you from these sources? It's always a little stunning just how easy it is for publics to be manipulated. Oh what a world.
      - bamboozled 1y ago
        You called the war for Russia? Did they win ? Anyway why don’t we see videos from Iran of Israeli jets being shot down ? Why is there no footage of Irans airforce engaging Israel ? Why didn’t the B-2 spirits get attacked ? You can say it’s all lies and propaganda , but it’s not because there is no evidence to the contrary being presented.
  - whynotminot 1y ago
    I’m sorry in all this noise I’m failing to get to your point. Are you claiming that Iran is shooting down F-35s? Because that would be a pretty important piece of information that a lot of countries who have staked their Air Forces on the F-35 would like to know. It would also be a hard piece of information (damn near impossible) to keep under wraps, given the stakes, and the number of interested parties.
foobarian 1y ago
I wonder if the regime is holding back so as to not piss off the remaining JCPOA signatories. They only have until October [1], and after that it's not clear if they can agree on a renewed set of sanctions. [1] https://iranwire.com/en/politics/136431-how-the-snapback-mechanism-brings-back-sanctions-on-iran/ https://iranwire.com/en/politics/136431-how-the-snapback-mec...
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  China buys all their oil so not sure how much the sanctions are a problem
- dontTREATonme 1y ago
  This is serious cope. Iran has never held back, they always go full tilt. They simply are the same paper tiger that Russia is, just now without the ability to produce nukes.
  - atoav 1y ago
    You always know an enemy is a paper tiger if it is at the same time weak and practically defeated and really dangerous and unhinged. Literally propaganda 101. Just like foreigners who are lazy leeches on the social system and at the same how somehow steal our jobs.
    - dontTREATonme 1y ago
      You can be a paper tiger and still pretty dangerous if you’re able to acquire nuclear weapons.
Invictus0 1y ago
We dropped a dozen highly specialized bombs in a single, closed-end operation, and you're arguing that this meaningfully depleted the USAF magazine enough to move the needle on a conflict in Taiwan?
- mjburgess 1y ago
  I'd be arguing first that the operation failed, and has made no meaningful impact on the mountain and esp. the nuclear facilities over 100m under granite. Generous estimates place relevant bomb capacity in the US at 100, though I believe only ~1/3 of that is confirmed. Reports say ~10 were used. So, speculatively, the US has used 25% of its capacity to bust deep fortifications -- and, imv, failed to make a dent. Credible estimates I'm aware of talk about dozens of bombs (per similar deep fortification), seriously depleting US capacity. It's unlikely the US would be willing to use up more than 50% of its bombing capacity here -- since a very large number of bombs are required for deep fortifications of this kind. ie., US capacity is about "destroying two mountains", and it really needs at least to retain capacity to destroy one. A well-designed nuke could take out the mountain, that's really the best air-supplied shot at taking the thing out. Either way, none of this can be confirmed without ground forces. So one wonders if at least some of this theatre is to provoke iran enough to react in a way that justifies a ground invasion. To your point, yes, china would absolutely love the US to degrade as much capacity as it possibly can. One images, even, they'd spin up a nuclear programme in iran very quickly again, just to try to drag the US back in. The US has done much worse. China's geostrategic goal at the moment is stamp on the rope-pins around the US elephant: ukraine, iran, israel, and so on. Have the US blow as much as possible of its rapidly depleting military arsenal everywhere but around china. Trump was the first president to really take this problem seriously, it's a little unfortunate that he's found himself in the same trap as every US president for the last 25 years.
  - tekknik 1y ago
    I stopped reading after 100 bombs capacity. They are purpose built bombs, we don’t stockpile them as we don’t hit iranian mountain target regularly enough. The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined. Every conflict there’s a contingent of people claiming the US will soon be out of munitions and can’t continue. Now the statement is made on the first attack. The US is oddly perceived as weak by this contingent, which flies in the face of reason.
whynotminot 1y ago
The bombs used were literally designed for Iran. They deplete no real capability that matters anywhere else the US is meaningfully engaged. If the US had lost a B2 during the operation, then sure, that would be a major loss. But as far as I can tell we did not.
- mjburgess 1y ago
  The ground invasion hasn't started yet, the US is supplying israel, and you can see my other comment.
  - whynotminot 1y ago
    We’re always supplying Israel. I think that cost is basically priced-in at this point. If we get involved in a ground invasion, sure, that’s a different matter.
    - mjburgess 1y ago
      Even if its an israeli ground invasion only, that's still a massive arms injection --- at the same time the US is supplying a ground war in europe. A ground war in europe, one in the middle east -- all of the US assets in distant seas, its bombs in distant lands. Pretty good time to be a china on tour.
      - whynotminot 1y ago
        Brother take a look at a map. Exactly how does Israel pull off a sustained ground invasion of Iran, even if the US committed to help? Sure, maybe some targeted commando raids here and there. They’re already doing that. Large scale invasion though? Almost logistically impossible unless you’re telling me the maps I’ve looked at my whole life are state propaganda too.
        mjburgess 1y ago
        Where did the US invade iraq from? https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-second-of-new-us-built-landing-craft/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-second-o...
blindriver 1y ago
> All of these claims are false. Source please.

bamboozled 1y ago

The propaganda What propaganda ? I’ve seen the footage of Iran firing flak cannons somewhere in the direction of f35s. Not a single Israeli plane has been lost…where is the lie ? Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003* why assume they want the current leadership to remain in charge? Why assume they wanted nukes ? You mention China grinding down its enemy ? What about the fact the air force is actually performing real missions being and gaining real experience ? Is a few bunker busters going to grind down the USAF ?

mjburgess 1y ago
Neither you or I, and esp. not the media, have any access to facts on the ground. All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them. All we can work backwards from are the most reliable facts we have before the war, about capabilities on the ground. We know the rough size of the iranian missile programme, of the country, economic, various military assets and similar. We can work backwards from this to ask, "what would we be able to see had Israel achieved its claim re iran" -- and we're talking extraordinary levels of destruction in iran, across the country, and so on. We don't have any evidence of operations of that scale even taking place, let alone having been successful. It is most likely, at the moment, that at least some alleged air force victories by israel are actual missiles they've issued from neighbouring states on the land. However, either way, all of this is speculation. What can be stated with near certainty is that any picture presented in the media is an extremely careful creation of the propaganda arms of our states, and not a credible military briefing. Our only access to reliable inferences is purely rational and hypothetical: what are X's aims, what are their claims, what are they claimed strategies, what are their capabilities and so on.. and then what would we see *if*...
- pliny 1y ago
  >All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them The source of most of the videos from both sides is random social media users. Even the videos and info from the IDF I would regard as credible, since they released similar videos and info from the Lebanon operation last year that was consistently corroborated by evidence from social media (there was no internet blackout in Lebanon so every IDF strike on an urban area had multiple videos from different perspectives).
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    Social media users placed by iran's full missile defense systems? Social media users at the bottom of 100m of granite? Social media users amongst the iranian barracks? I called the war for Russia ~2 years ago, just as the "counter offensive" by Ukraine was starting. Go back, if you wish, to that time in the news and find exactly what english-speaking western median, and social media, was saying. What is the picture you get, of Ukraine and its counteroffensive, delivered to you from these sources? It's always a little stunning just how easy it is for publics to be manipulated. Oh what a world.
    - bamboozled 1y ago
      You called the war for Russia? Did they win ? Anyway why don’t we see videos from Iran of Israeli jets being shot down ? Why is there no footage of Irans airforce engaging Israel ? Why didn’t the B-2 spirits get attacked ? You can say it’s all lies and propaganda , but it’s not because there is no evidence to the contrary being presented.
- whynotminot 1y ago
  I’m sorry in all this noise I’m failing to get to your point. Are you claiming that Iran is shooting down F-35s? Because that would be a pretty important piece of information that a lot of countries who have staked their Air Forces on the F-35 would like to know. It would also be a hard piece of information (damn near impossible) to keep under wraps, given the stakes, and the number of interested parties.

foobarian 1y ago

I wonder if the regime is holding back so as to not piss off the remaining JCPOA signatories. They only have until October [1], and after that it's not clear if they can agree on a renewed set of sanctions. [1] https://iranwire.com/en/politics/136431-how-the-snapback-mechanism-brings-back-sanctions-on-iran/ https://iranwire.com/en/politics/136431-how-the-snapback-mec...

insane_dreamer 1y ago
China buys all their oil so not sure how much the sanctions are a problem
dontTREATonme 1y ago
This is serious cope. Iran has never held back, they always go full tilt. They simply are the same paper tiger that Russia is, just now without the ability to produce nukes.
- atoav 1y ago
  You always know an enemy is a paper tiger if it is at the same time weak and practically defeated and really dangerous and unhinged. Literally propaganda 101. Just like foreigners who are lazy leeches on the social system and at the same how somehow steal our jobs.
  - dontTREATonme 1y ago
    You can be a paper tiger and still pretty dangerous if you’re able to acquire nuclear weapons.

Invictus0 1y ago

We dropped a dozen highly specialized bombs in a single, closed-end operation, and you're arguing that this meaningfully depleted the USAF magazine enough to move the needle on a conflict in Taiwan?

mjburgess 1y ago
I'd be arguing first that the operation failed, and has made no meaningful impact on the mountain and esp. the nuclear facilities over 100m under granite. Generous estimates place relevant bomb capacity in the US at 100, though I believe only ~1/3 of that is confirmed. Reports say ~10 were used. So, speculatively, the US has used 25% of its capacity to bust deep fortifications -- and, imv, failed to make a dent. Credible estimates I'm aware of talk about dozens of bombs (per similar deep fortification), seriously depleting US capacity. It's unlikely the US would be willing to use up more than 50% of its bombing capacity here -- since a very large number of bombs are required for deep fortifications of this kind. ie., US capacity is about "destroying two mountains", and it really needs at least to retain capacity to destroy one. A well-designed nuke could take out the mountain, that's really the best air-supplied shot at taking the thing out. Either way, none of this can be confirmed without ground forces. So one wonders if at least some of this theatre is to provoke iran enough to react in a way that justifies a ground invasion. To your point, yes, china would absolutely love the US to degrade as much capacity as it possibly can. One images, even, they'd spin up a nuclear programme in iran very quickly again, just to try to drag the US back in. The US has done much worse. China's geostrategic goal at the moment is stamp on the rope-pins around the US elephant: ukraine, iran, israel, and so on. Have the US blow as much as possible of its rapidly depleting military arsenal everywhere but around china. Trump was the first president to really take this problem seriously, it's a little unfortunate that he's found himself in the same trap as every US president for the last 25 years.
- tekknik 1y ago
  I stopped reading after 100 bombs capacity. They are purpose built bombs, we don’t stockpile them as we don’t hit iranian mountain target regularly enough. The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined. Every conflict there’s a contingent of people claiming the US will soon be out of munitions and can’t continue. Now the statement is made on the first attack. The US is oddly perceived as weak by this contingent, which flies in the face of reason.

whynotminot 1y ago

The bombs used were literally designed for Iran. They deplete no real capability that matters anywhere else the US is meaningfully engaged. If the US had lost a B2 during the operation, then sure, that would be a major loss. But as far as I can tell we did not.

mjburgess 1y ago
The ground invasion hasn't started yet, the US is supplying israel, and you can see my other comment.
- whynotminot 1y ago
  We’re always supplying Israel. I think that cost is basically priced-in at this point. If we get involved in a ground invasion, sure, that’s a different matter.
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    Even if its an israeli ground invasion only, that's still a massive arms injection --- at the same time the US is supplying a ground war in europe. A ground war in europe, one in the middle east -- all of the US assets in distant seas, its bombs in distant lands. Pretty good time to be a china on tour.
    - whynotminot 1y ago
      Brother take a look at a map. Exactly how does Israel pull off a sustained ground invasion of Iran, even if the US committed to help? Sure, maybe some targeted commando raids here and there. They’re already doing that. Large scale invasion though? Almost logistically impossible unless you’re telling me the maps I’ve looked at my whole life are state propaganda too.
      - mjburgess 1y ago
        Where did the US invade iraq from? https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-second-of-new-us-built-landing-craft/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-second-o...

blindriver 1y ago

> All of these claims are false. Source please.