- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
Probably won't last long, but no need for separate threads at the moment. We'll split again if it becomes necessary.
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
New Middle East War Thread - Reports & Discussion Unless The Crisis Escalates
- Thread starter RiffRaff
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
Iran Threatens ‘Earth-Shattering Blow’ as Trump Weighs New Strikes
Iran threatened an “earth-shattering blow” against the U.S. and Israel on Saturday, warning that “red lines are a thing of the past.”
www.breitbart.com
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
US Briefs Gulf States: Prepare for Brief, Intense War With Iran
US Briefs Gulf States: Prepare for Brief, Intense War With Iran
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
As long as Iran is able to keep bringing money in, it is unlikely they can be stopped.
It's the same with with North Korea. Got to stop the money.
It's the same with with North Korea. Got to stop the money.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
@DEFCON Warning System @RiffRaff Did you see this?!
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
I just knew it was coming to this- the sick bastards! Every time Trump kept teasing about the "destruction of a civilization", I knew that the implied message was a nuclear strike.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2018
Will it be the U.S. or Israel that does it? Or during a joint attack so both can deny they did it?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
- Location
- NYC
You're seriously basing the garbage that Tucker Carlson -- the Qatari mouthpiece -- spouts?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
Like him or not, Tucker Carlson does have well-placed contacts in the Trump administration. Personally, I agree with him. The language that Trump has been using seems to have been an implied threat of a nuclear strike.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
- Location
- NYC
I seriously doubt that Trump will do a nuclear strike on Iran -- and if he does it certainly won't be at Netanyahu's urging. The fallout would end up blowing right over Israel.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
Im sure he had some well placed contacts in the administration.
However, since his current persona has so radically changed, I would question whether those contacts remain available to him any longer.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
I agree with both Tucker's reliability and inflammatory tendencies. On the flip side, we cant' just ignore this either. Remember that during his first term, Trump once asked his advisors why the US can't use nuclear weapons. He's also very unpredictable and the sole authority in the country to authorize the release of nuclear weapons. JD Vance can't countermand that order. They also know that they can use a nuclear weapon on Iran with minimal chance of a retaliatory nuclear strike from any other nuclear state.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
Absolutely true.
Most likely not a retaliatory strike per se, but would such a strike open the door for Russia to use a limited tactical nuke strike to seal the fortress line in Eastern Ukraine?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Monday that the country's supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted the government "certain authorities" regarding peace talks with Washington, Iranian state media reported.Pezeshkian added that Iran would seek to resolve the conflict with the United States through dialogue.
Interesting timing in lieu of the nuke talk.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2021
Look at the language coming from the other side. I could post page after page of iran threating to blow up Isreal, the US and the whole middle east. The difference is, THE US COULD ACTUALLY DO IT! WITH ONE SUBMARINE!
If I were iran I would be VERY NERVOUS!
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
Oh I agree wholeheartedly with you as well. The Iranian regime is absolutely evil. But I still say that anyone contemplating the use of nuclear weapons is a sick bastard.Look at the language coming from the other side. I could post page after page of iran threating to blow up Isreal, the US and the whole middle east. The difference is, THE US COULD ACTUALLY DO IT! WITH ONE SUBMARINE!
If I were iran I would be VERY NERVOUS!
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
The first nuclear weapon detonated in combat automatically lowers any previous inhibitions by other countries to use theirs. So, yes, I think it would open the door. Would Russia walk through that door? Unknown.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2026
Forgive a layperson for speaking out of ignorance, but when such a threat (speaking of Carlson) of nuclear warfare is being brought up as not only a possibility but one being seriously considered by the Trump administration, does anyone here think a "relative peace" rating for the DWS is appropriate?
The source is obviously not a bastion of truth, but I would at least regard his claims with some amount of seriousness. If he's reporting honestly, we should all be speaking up and making preparations. If he's pushing an agenda, I am curious what that agenda is, especially as this comes as the midterm elections are happening, and it seems like a story that wouldn't benefit the Trump administration or the GOP, so I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.
Does anyone think we'd have any warnings - any canaries in the coal mine - before a nuclear detonation, or would we all just find out about it on the news after the fact?
Is anyone else concerned or is the consensus that this is quite unlikely?
The source is obviously not a bastion of truth, but I would at least regard his claims with some amount of seriousness. If he's reporting honestly, we should all be speaking up and making preparations. If he's pushing an agenda, I am curious what that agenda is, especially as this comes as the midterm elections are happening, and it seems like a story that wouldn't benefit the Trump administration or the GOP, so I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.
Does anyone think we'd have any warnings - any canaries in the coal mine - before a nuclear detonation, or would we all just find out about it on the news after the fact?
Is anyone else concerned or is the consensus that this is quite unlikely?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
I've seen reports on Twitter/X that Trump and Netanyahu had a phone call without anyone else present. Combine that with the fact that governments around the world seem to be telling people to prepare for war, and I think there's definitely truth to that. At least, that's what I'm reading between the lines.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2022
You should always stay prepared. Tucker making an opinion on nuclear use shouldn't be anything more to consider, other than a different perspective on the visually confirmed facts that guide the DWS level. At the end of the day most of what he is parsing out is not sourced, and not easily verifiable. Tactical nuclear use is still very much far from the beginning of possible strategies. It would be not only sure political suicide for the current administration, but also a major historical and strategic domino that would almost certainly set off a chain of events that would ultimately lead to a far far worse situation than where we were to begin with. Even within the standards of this administration, nuclear use is still a boogeyman for military leaders. Once you take that cat out of the bag it is IMPOSSIBLE to put it back. You can only slow down the detrimental effects that it would have on human psychology, and how we wage war. A total lose lose situation.