🗣️ | US-Israel (&) Iran-Lebanon | Regional "All-out" Hostiles May Resume Shortly | ANALYSIS OF REPORTS

[RiffRaff]

It wasn't for nothing, I think a lot of us have been pointing out for a while what it is for, while some were too wilfully blind to accept it. A lot of people made a lot of money trading oil up and down predictably. The US government operates in the personal self interests of those with their hands on the lever.

There were also domestic political concerns for both The Israeli and American governments, all of which have essentially vanished from the international media in favor of covering the war instead. I'm also going to venture a long-term prediction, based on how this war has been prosecuted so far: The "president’s reluctance to reignite the war" is not due to avoiding a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated that is clearly not a concern of his, and the sheer amount of military assets transported to the Middle East over the past several weeks indicates the US military is preparing for a massive operation against Iran. My prediction is that this operation will not occur until we are closer to mid-term elections, possibly as soon as August, maybe as late as October. The goal will be to manipulate media coverage like a magician's assistant - watch the hot scantily-clad assistant over there to distract you from what the magician is doing to pull off his illusion over here.

Don't get me wrong; this kind of behavior is not limited to the Trump Administration. In August of 1998 the US military launched missile strikes against targets in both Sudan and Afghanistan under the pretense of targeting al Qaeda bases. Those strikes occurred three days after President Bill Clinton provided testimony to a grand jury convened as a result of the sex scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. Bombings against Iraq and Yugoslavia (of all places) were also launched in 1999 during impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Clinton is largely responsible for the phrase "wag the dog" becoming part of popular American lexicon referencing a sitting President utilizing military actions to distract the public from scandals.

There are other examples, but I think I've made my point, and I deliberately chose Clinton, a Democrat, to avoid the perception of this post being politically biased against Trump. It's not. He is merely the latest among several US presidents to utilize this "wag the dog" strategy, contributing to the multiple global geopolitical crises we are currently monitoring.

There is a "sweet spot" for a major military incident to occur and actually influence the mid-term elections. Too soon, and it loses its shock value and the capability of influencing how people vote. Too late, and it becomes obvious to even the American public that it's an attempt to manipulate them, causing it to backfire. In my mind, September is the perfect month for this politically, but I'm allowing a 30-day variance before and after. We are only four weeks away from entering that window.

 

[Irag8er]

In my mind, September is the perfect month for this politically

Yes, the quintessential October Surprise.

"wag the dog" strategy

Absoultly agree. I brought this up months ago.

 

[Ben Dhyani]

https://www.ft.com/content/a0ce59f9-fbde-49e8-9158-fba3d4079859?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Trump says Netanyahu will have ‘no choice’ but to accept a deal with Iran​

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will have no choice but to accept any deal the US negotiates with Iran, Donald Trump said, because the US president “calls the shots”.“He won’t have any choice,”

Trump told the FT in a telephone interview. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.”Trump spoke shortly after Iran launched a salvo of ballistic missiles at Israel in the most serious breach of the ceasefire that was struck in early April.

 

[Yingyang]

Iran calls the shots.
Soon due to hostilities by Israel and the US Iran will demonstrate their ability in Iranian territory. NK 2.0 once again surprise. BACK OFF. IMO.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

France: The military option is not ruled out if diplomacy with Iran fails.

I don't think France ever considered a military option in the first place.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I don't think France ever considered a military option in the first place.

Original post says Fance, could have been typo for Vance

 

[Peter Griffin]

Also haven't been able to find secondary sourcing on that

 

[william]

Iran has targeted two bases in northern Iraq that are believed to be housing US forces (and have for some time).The Erbil International Airport (36°14'14.99"N 43°57'47.15"E) has an attached military base.

Published footage of the attacks appears to line up with the terrain. The Harir Air Base (36°31'36.83"N 44°20'49.92"E). Iran states that it launched the attack targeting Kurdish forces.

Quit fracking around and thunder run into iran with armored columns and TAKE TEHRAN!

https://twitter.com/x/status/2064146339936731253

 

[Publius]

Quit fracking around and thunder run into iran with armored columns and TAKE TEHRAN!

William I do not see boots on the ground in Iran being successful. Not that we couldn’t completely suppress the IRGC. By that I mean hunt every last one of them down. Or even potentially be successful with a new gov in charge in Iran.
There wasn’t the political will to do what was necessary in Iraq to achieve this outcome. There certainly isn’t one now for Iran.

I share your frustration but this type of action and outcome just isn’t the world we live in today.

 

[william]

William I do not see boots on the ground in Iran being successful. Not that we couldn’t completely suppress the IRGC. By that I mean hunt every last one of them down. Or even potentially be successful with a new gov in charge in Iran.
There wasn’t the political will to do what was necessary in Iraq to achieve this outcome. There certainly isn’t one now for Iran.

I share your frustration but this type of action and outcome just isn’t the world we live in today.

Sure we could, take the capital, depose the IRGC and leave. Let the general Iranian army maintain order and let the people decide who their leaders will be. With the stipulation that Uncle Sam will be closely watching with a big gun cocked.

The problem in Iraq was the US completely disbanded the army and didn't have enough troops there for a full occupation. Hence you got a gorilla war.

 

[Dr Arthur]

Iran calls the shots.
Soon due to hostilities by Israel and the US Iran will demonstrate their ability in Iranian territory. NK 2.0 once again surprise. BACK OFF. IMO.

And don't forget the potential impact of China and Russia.

 

[RiffRaff]

Quit fracking around and thunder run into iran with armored columns and TAKE TEHRAN!

This would be an unmitigated disaster on par with Vietnam and Afghanistan. Iran has been invaded multiple times over the past 5,000 years, but it has never been fully conquered or subjugated. Unless the US is willing to go full commitment with hundreds of thousands of troops and suffer large numbers of casualties in urban combat scenarios, they would get their asses handed to them on a silver platter. A lot of Americans look at Iran as an impoverished third-world country, unable to defend itself against American firepower. That could not be further from the truth.

Pull back, establish a ceasefire and good faith negotiations, and get it worked out without more Americans needlessly dying on foreign soil. If that completely fails, THEN discuss the massive military option, but don't halfass it. 50,000 troops on the ground is not going to be able to take Tehran.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Sure we could, take the capital, depose the IRGC and leave. Let the general Iranian army maintain order and let the people decide who their leaders will be. With the stipulation that Uncle Sam will be closely watching with a big gun cocked.

The problem in Iraq was the US completely disbanded the army and didn't have enough troops there for a full occupation. Hence you got a gorilla war.

Tehran is a vast desert, with cascading mountains and more places to hide than Vietnam, Not to mention it would be us vs them on a non established front. That means months of planning for beach landings and the Iranians have had decades to develop defensive strategies to counter that, add in the ticking time bomb that are FPV drones and loitering munitions, and we would be in for the most hard fought war since WW2. Targetted raids and other options are still feasible but any large scale conventional invasion of Iran would require collapsing the Iranian's lines faster than they can fully mobilize, and IMO we just do not have that capability right now unless we were to make a hard pivot to Iran and forego all other potential hotspots.

 

[william]

There were also domestic political concerns for both The Israeli and American governments, all of which have essentially vanished from the international media in favor of covering the war instead. I'm also going to venture a long-term prediction, based on how this war has been prosecuted so far: The "president’s reluctance to reignite the war" is not due to avoiding a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated that is clearly not a concern of his, and the sheer amount of military assets transported to the Middle East over the past several weeks indicates the US military is preparing for a massive operation against Iran. My prediction is that this operation will not occur until we are closer to mid-term elections, possibly as soon as August, maybe as late as October. The goal will be to manipulate media coverage like a magician's assistant - watch the hot scantily-clad assistant over there to distract you from what the magician is doing to pull off his illusion over here.

Don't get me wrong; this kind of behavior is not limited to the Trump Administration. In August of 1998 the US military launched missile strikes against targets in both Sudan and Afghanistan under the pretense of targeting al Qaeda bases. Those strikes occurred three days after President Bill Clinton provided testimony to a grand jury convened as a result of the sex scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. Bombings against Iraq and Yugoslavia (of all places) were also launched in 1999 during impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Clinton is largely responsible for the phrase "wag the dog" becoming part of popular American lexicon referencing a sitting President utilizing military actions to distract the public from scandals.

There are other examples, but I think I've made my point, and I deliberately chose Clinton, a Democrat, to avoid the perception of this post being politically biased against Trump. It's not. He is merely the latest among several US presidents to utilize this "wag the dog" strategy, contributing to the multiple global geopolitical crises we are currently monitoring.

There is a "sweet spot" for a major military incident to occur and actually influence the mid-term elections. Too soon, and it loses its shock value and the capability of influencing how people vote. Too late, and it becomes obvious to even the American public that it's an attempt to manipulate them, causing it to backfire. In my mind, September is the perfect month for this politically, but I'm allowing a 30-day variance before and after. We are only four weeks away from entering that window.

You very well could be right, however I don't think the left would fall for a diversionary tactic like that anymore. If gas is still hovering around $5 a gal. and the price of commodities keeps going up that is what is going to influence the midterms, and the Democrats are pushing that hard right now.

Of course, the justification for an "Oct Surprise" could be the high prices. We had to do it because we will not be held hostage by Iran. That type of thing, but again, I don't think the left will follow the whole "Rally Behind the Flag" strategy that has been done in the past.

I just pray that when the Democrats gain power, they don't hamstring the President by impeachment proceedings and cutting off funding for Isreal, the US military and friendly gulf countries. The house just passed a war powers resolution to do just that. If this happens Iran will get the bomb. IMO

 

[william]

This would be an unmitigated disaster on par with Vietnam and Afghanistan. Iran has been invaded multiple times over the past 5,000 years, but it has never been fully conquered or subjugated. Unless the US is willing to go full commitment with hundreds of thousands of troops and suffer large numbers of casualties in urban combat scenarios, they would get their asses handed to them on a silver platter. A lot of Americans look at Iran as an impoverished third-world country, unable to defend itself against American firepower. That could not be further from the truth.

Pull back, establish a ceasefire and good faith negotiations, and get it worked out without more Americans needlessly dying on foreign soil. If that completely fails, THEN discuss the massive military option, but don't halfass it. 50,000 troops on the ground is not going to be able to take Tehran.

Aren't the ceasefire and negotiations what the US is doing now. I don't think that is working out very well. The President is saying that the Iranians want a peace deal as they are launching salvos of missiles and drones at US and friendly forces.

As for the unmitigated disasters in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The US never invaded North Vietnam, (which we should have), we bombed them into submission I think it was three times to get them to the peace table, kind of like we are doing now, and all they did was rearm and rebuild.

In Afghanistan the Taliban were deposed from Kabul practically overnight and chased into the mountains, which is what should happen in Iran IMO.

Let the Iranian general army maintain order, paid by the US and surrounding countries (the Saudis are rich aren't they) and let the surrounding gulf countries sort out the political BS. Whether Iran ends up with a king, president or prime minister, who cares as long as they are not chanting "Death to America." and have friendly relations with the surrounding countries.

I agree that 50,000 US troops is not enough for an invasion, but I believe Isreal has called up around 400,000 and what about the other gulf countries that we have been arming and training for years. It's time to pay the piper. IMO

 

[william]

Tehran is a vast desert, with cascading mountains and more places to hide than Vietnam, Not to mention it would be us vs them on a non established front. That means months of planning for beach landings and the Iranians have had decades to develop defensive strategies to counter that, add in the ticking time bomb that are FPV drones and loitering munitions, and we would be in for the most hard fought war since WW2. Targetted raids and other options are still feasible but any large scale conventional invasion of Iran would require collapsing the Iranian's lines faster than they can fully mobilize, and IMO we just do not have that capability right now unless we were to make a hard pivot to Iran and forego all other potential hotspots.

The desert is ideal for armored assaults and as for the planning goes, Washington think tanks have been planning for over 40 years.

 

[Peter Griffin]

The desert is ideal for armored assaults and as for the planning goes, Washington think tanks have been planning for over 40 years.

To even utilize the advantages of desert warfare we would have to launch an unprecedented ground invasion from the Iraq border, which would still leave you left in the shadow of the Zagros mountains for the entire operational width of Iran with little means of securing prime logistics hubs and highways without severe unconventional resistance and conventional. Not to mention that if you do find yourself in the Iranian deserts, you are going to be facing some of the hottest recorded temperatures in history. The mountains especially along the coast are ripe with vegetation and ravines, natural occurring caves, making anyone who controls the mountains have an instant advantage in movement and rotation. Repeat this process after a securing a beachhead in Bandar Abbas and you can start to see how this would require at minimum tenfold the capacity we have in the region right now, and a severe degradation of Iranian logistical efforts before this would even be a 50/50 chance at success.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Pull back, establish a ceasefire and good faith negotiations

How would any agreement be enforced or validated?

 

[Publius]

Aren't the ceasefire and negotiations what the US is doing now. I don't think that is working out very well. The President is saying that the Iranians want a peace deal as they are launching salvos of missiles and drones at US and friendly forces.

Who’s actually in charge in Iran? We probably are negotiating with some individuals of influence. Just as others in Iran are lashing out in anyway they can.

As for the unmitigated disasters in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The US never invaded North Vietnam, (which we should have), we bombed them into submission I think it was three times to get them to the peace table, kind of like we are doing now, and all they did was rearm and rebuild.

In Afghanistan the Taliban were deposed from Kabul practically overnight and chased into the mountains, which is what should happen in Iran IMO.

Chased into the mountains is not defeated. The phrase “the Americans have all the clocks, while we have all the time” comes to mind. Chasing a combatant out of an area without something viable and strong enough to hold the land is an exercise in futility.

Let the Iranian general army maintain order, paid by the US and surrounding countries (the Saudis are rich aren't they) and let the surrounding gulf countries sort out the political BS. Whether Iran ends up with a king, president or prime minister, who cares as long as they are not chanting "Death to America." and have friendly relations with the surrounding countries.

We just need to remember that ANY individual or group who comes to power in Iran will not be a nice neat western parliamentary system.

I agree that 50,000 US troops is not enough for an invasion, but I believe Isreal has called up around 400,000 and what about the other gulf countries that we have been arming and training for years. It's time to pay the piper. IMO

Again I don’t disagree with what should be done, or that it could actually be done.
My disagreement is in the snow balls chance in Hell the nations involved will commit themselves to launch a large scale invasion and occupation that would be required.

There really is only one potential win. Defang Iran’s military and financial resources enough to prevent them from sponsoring attacks outward as they have done in Syria Lebanon Yemen.
To accomplish this the leadership and factions in Iran need to be fractured enough that they spend more energy fighting each other than bothering others.
In other words “rinse and repeat the Syrian Civil War”.

I was pretty vocal in my opposition to the west and gulf states efforts to inflame and feed the Syrian civil war.
However at least for now the strong man gov that came to power genuinely seems more interested in rebuilding Syria than being a terrorist launch pad.

The real difficulty for the administration is that instigating armed factional fighting inside Iran might achieve the goal of neutering the ayatollahs.
communicating it as victory will be very hard to do. Especially in the current heated political environment.

I would like to make a point on the post election environment regarding presidential authorization for use of force.

If control of one of the houses were to flip.
I just remind everyone there was no congressional authorization for use of force to topple Qaddafi or use military in Serbia or Bosnia. But that’s an argument for another day.

 

[Publius]

How would any agreement be enforced or validated?

You know I think the only practical win is to bruise and bloody the IRGC and ayatollahs enough that they are simply too weak to be the antagonist they have been.
IF there is no unified Iranian opposition to rise up from within Iran. This might be the best we could hope for.

Was it the administration actual goal flip the Iranian government. Or was it actually more about flipping the flow and control of oil.
I say that with zero shame. This “oh it’s all just about dirty corporate profits and oil” narrative is kinda insincere.

Resources and the control of resources are one of the fundamental reasons nations and tribes have ever gone to war over, forever.