Middle East | DISCUSSIONS | Oct' 24 - June' 25

[Torch]

It doesn’t hurt that with him in office and increased US oil production it is forcing a stabilization of oil prices.

They can no longer strangle North America and South America (though that is largely Brazil and ethanol) They might as well play nice. I think ISIL scared the crap out of the Gulf State Monarchy(?)

They also can scratch the US seizing oil fields. China not so much. They have a massive thirst and as a strong man uni-party are unpredictable. After seeing French Rafael’s get punched in the face by “little ole J10s” the only answer to hordes of J10’s and select J15’s is American J35’s and probably our missiles. Nobody in their right mind is buying Russian in they can afford better.It has to be super frustrating to Ivan as their prototype and low production equipment is very good and I’m still scared of Russian ATA and SAM’s)

Some else would have to speak of Europes energy plight as I have Nada for facts off the top of my head. Looks like a suicide pact for them though. Lose the Middle East and they are screwed. That another reason it pisses my off. I never saw the EU in the briefs and post debriefs. (I do give kudos for their huge contributions in Shitastan and showing up after 9/11. It’s just that it seems like the LA. national guard is bigger than all of the EU active forces. I know that isn’t true, but…)


Wow this missive tracked way off course. Sorry.

My 2¢ YMMV

 

[Publius]

They can no longer strangle North America and South America (though that is largely Brazil and ethanol) They might as well play nice. I think ISIL scared the crap out of the Gulf State Monarchy(?)

They also can scratch the US seizing oil fields. China not so much. They have a massive thirst and as a strong man uni-party are unpredictable. After seeing French Rafael’s get punched in the face by “little ole J10s” the only answer to hordes of J10’s and select J15’s is American J35’s and probably our missiles. Nobody in their right mind is buying Russian in they can afford better.It has to be super frustrating to Ivan as their prototype and low production equipment is very good and I’m still scared of Russian ATA and SAM’s)

Some else would have to speak of Europes energy plight as I have Nada for facts off the top of my head. Looks like a suicide pact for them though. Lose the Middle East and they are screwed. That another reason it pisses my off. I never saw the EU in the briefs and post debriefs. (I do give kudos for their huge contributions in Shitastan and showing up after 9/11. It’s just that it seems like the LA. national guard is bigger than all of the EU active forces. I know that isn’t true, but…)

Europe should have seen the writing on the wall after the wall came down and began engaging more in the Middle East. Now I’m not saying in anyway they have not been with the US the last twenty years. I’m only saying they might have been more proactive and forward deployed than they have. France is the only nation other than the US running independent interdiction forces in Africa. Italy has some small foot prints in old colonial nations.

Wow this missive tracked way off course. Sorry.

My 2¢ YMMV

 

[NuclearID]

The unprecedented U.S. military buildup, especially airpower, has not left the Middle East. All of it remains deployed in theater. Last I checked, even our strike groups are still positioned there. In fact, an additional two B-2s were recently sent to the Indian Ocean. Making it 8 in total now?

Just a reminder: the United States currently has an absolutely unprecedented concentration of firepower parked in the Middle East. Possibly the largest ever deployed to a single theater outside of U.S. territory in American history. This shockingly is not a exaggeration. Let that sink in.

 

[william]

Just a reminder: the United States currently has an absolutely unprecedented concentration of firepower parked in the Middle East. Possibly the largest ever deployed to a single theater outside of U.S. territory in American history. This shockingly is not a exaggeration. Let that sink in.

IRAQ: U.S. Deployments at the War’s Height​

The Pentagon said that some 340,000 U.S. servicemen and women were under the authority of the U.S. Central Command. GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information website, estimated that about 235,000 of these troops were engaged in the Iraq war.

Where were most of the troops located?​

Pentagon officials said more than 125,000 troops were in Iraq. Others remained in Kuwait, the main staging area for the ground force. In more limited numbers, U.S. forces were also in Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman, Israel, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia, a 17-square-mile island in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Tens of thousands of additional troops were at sea in aircraft carrier battle groups or on Marine amphibious assault ships.

What kinds of forces were present?​

Every branch of the U.S. armed services— including the Coast Guard— was involved. Troops consisted of a mix of special operations forces, combat units, and security and support personnel.

Did other countries sent troops?​

Yes. There were approximately 45,000 British troops, roughly 2,000 Australian soldiers, and a small number of Polish combat troops. A number of other countries, such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, sent non-combat troops. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE also sent 8,000 soldiers to Kuwait in a largely symbolic effort to help defend that country. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in 1990.

Do we know how many U.S. reserves and National Guard troops were called?​

Yes. As of April 2, 218, reserve and National Guard troops had been placed on active duty. Most of these— 148,450— belonged to the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

What were the main ground forces involved in the invasion?​

They included:

• The First Marine Expeditionary Force, with approximately 50,000 Marines.
• The Army’s Third Infantry Division, a mechanized unit with 16,500 soldiers, dozens of Apache attack and Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters, and hundreds of M1A1 Abrams tanks and M2A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
• The Army’s 101st Airborne Division, with a total of 19,000 personnel and about 280 helicopters. This unit was deployed via aircraft in both northern and southern Iraq.
• The 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade and the 173rd Airborne Brigade. These units fought in central and northern Iraq.
• The Army’s V Corps, based in Heidelberg, Germany. V Corps commander Lt. Gen. William Wallace was placed in charge of all Army units taking part in the invasion. V Corps personnel numbered some 35,000 and included engineering, military police, air defense, and helicopter attack units.

What other ground forces were slated to deploy?​

They included thousands of soldiers from the First Cavalry Regiment, the First Armored Division, the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, and the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment. By mid-April, the First Cavalry had been put on hold and the First Armored had started to roll into southern Iraq. These heavy units, with tanks and armored fighting vehicles, reinforced supply lines in southern Iraq and provided back-up for ground forces in Baghdad.

How much sea power was deployed?​

At the war’s height, there were six aircraft carrier battle groups in the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf: USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Harry S. Truman, USS Constellation, USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz. There were also 23 amphibious task group ships in the region carrying more than 10,000 Marines.

How much of U.S. firepower was based on aircraft carriers?​

A great deal. The six carrier battle groups comprised more than 40 ships, which in total could fire more than 1,200 Tomahawk cruise missiles and host about 300 attack aircraft. In all, about 70 aircraft, including F-14 and F-18 fighter jets, electronic warfare aircraft, refueling aircraft, and helicopters were associated with each carrier. Total personnel in each carrier group ranged from 5,800 to more than 8,000.​

What kinds of U.S. aircraft were involved in the war?​

The Pentagon said that some 1,200 aircraft were in the CENTCOM region.

• AWACS airborne command aircraft acted as communication and surveillance hubs high over the battlefield, detecting, identifying, and tracking aircraft.
• EC-130 electronic combat aircraft jammed enemy communications, broadcast a range of television and radio signals, and gathered intelligence.
• F-15, F-16, and A-10 fighter jets hit targets with precision-guided and other weapons.
• B-2 long-distance stealth bombers and single-seat F-117 stealth attack fighters evaded enemy radars and delivered a range of heavy weaponry and precision-guided munitions. The B-2’s flew from bases in Diego Garcia, Britain, or their home base in Missouri; the F-117s flew from bases in Qatar.
• B-1B and B-52 bombers. These heavy bombers dropped a wide range of weaponry, including precision-guided high-explosive bombs, cluster bombs, and cruise missiles.

 

[NuclearID]

A lot of the aircraft you listed @william are for ground support and wouldn’t make sense to use against Iran hence why they’re not part of the firepower buildup we’re currently seeing.

Many of the planes used during the Iraq wars were for ground support, not strategic bombing or high yield firepower. That’s why I still call this buildup unprecedented in terms of sheer bombing capability and strike power not air superiority or tactical support.

This is also why I can say without a doubt an invasion is not on the table. There are no troop levels or logistics in place to support a ground campaign.

HOWEVER what we do see is a nearly, if not outright unmatched concentration of aerial firepower in the Middle East and it keeps growing, even though we already have an absurd amount in the region capable of dealing with Iran and its proxy troublemakers.

Suppose you can’t be too prepared when sitting on a powder keg. But if this is preparation, we now have more than enough to light the whole damn fuse and all the fuses next to it, too...

 

[Publius]

A lot of the aircraft you listed @william are for ground support and wouldn’t make sense to use against Iran hence why they’re not part of the firepower buildup we’re currently seeing.

Many of the planes used during the Iraq wars were for ground support, not strategic bombing or high yield firepower. That’s why I still call this buildup unprecedented in terms of sheer bombing capability and strike power not air superiority or tactical support.

This is also why I can say without a doubt an invasion is not on the table. There are no troop levels or logistics in place to support a ground campaign.

HOWEVER what we do see is a nearly, if not outright unmatched concentration of aerial firepower in the Middle East and it keeps growing, even though we already have an absurd amount in the region capable of dealing with Iran and its proxy troublemakers.

Suppose you can’t be too prepared when sitting on a powder keg. But if this is preparation, we now have more than enough to light the whole damn fuse and all the fuses next to it, too...

They’re there for pressure, and whatever if needed if the talks fail.

 

[GBS61]

In my opinion, the US will not attack Iran. Trump is primarily looking for money to reduce the American debt, hence his presence in the Middle East. Moreover, wars are expensive, and no matter how powerful a state, it never knows if this war will be long.

 

[Torch]

A lot of the aircraft you listed @william are for ground support and wouldn’t make sense to use against Iran hence why they’re not part of the firepower buildup we’re currently seeing.

Many of the planes used during the Iraq wars were for ground support, not strategic bombing or high yield firepower. That’s why I still call this buildup unprecedented in terms of sheer bombing capability and strike power not air superiority or tactical support.

This is also why I can say without a doubt an invasion is not on the table. There are no troop levels or logistics in place to support a ground campaign.

HOWEVER what we do see is a nearly, if not outright unmatched concentration of aerial firepower in the Middle East and it keeps growing, even though we already have an absurd amount in the region capable of dealing with Iran and its proxy troublemakers.

Suppose you can’t be too prepared when sitting on a powder keg. But if this is preparation, we now have more than enough to light the whole damn fuse and all the fuses next to it, too...

There are a metric shit ton of A-10 and AH-64’s in the gulf. Especially A-10’s

 

[Torch]

In my opinion, the US will not attack Iran. Trump is primarily looking for money to reduce the American debt, hence his presence in the Middle East. Moreover, wars are expensive, and no matter how powerful a state, it never knows if this war will be long.

Ehh, bombs dropped from B-2’d are fairly economical. But your point is valid!

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister: Uranium enrichment is a red line and its cessation is unacceptable.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923365251573219398

There is some context that is needed in that statement. Is Iran saying they won't stop enrichment at all, or are they saying they won't stop enrichment at any level?

 

[NuclearID]

There is some context that is needed in that statement. Is Iran saying they won't stop enrichment at all, or are they saying they won't stop enrichment at any level?

They clarified with another statement. So. No, no.

Iran out right refuses to scaleback, dismantle, or stop enrichment. Peiord. So talks are essentially dead and will fail given that stance as that is somthing Trump and in Congress (both sides) have said is a absolute no-go.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister: We will not dismantle any enrichment facilities.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923367923097203123

 

[Irag8er]

There is some context that is needed in that statement. Is Iran saying they won't stop enrichment at all, or are they saying they won't stop enrichment at any level?

Iran is saying it won’t stop enrichment entirely—meaning it rejects a complete suspension of its enrichment program (zero enrichment). However, it is not saying it won’t negotiate on the level of enrichment. Recent statements from Iranian officials indicate openness to reducing enrichment to civilian levels (e.g., 3.67%) and eliminating highly enriched stockpiles, provided the right conditions are met. The "red line" is about maintaining the act of enrichment itself, not necessarily the purity or scale of the program. This reflects Iran’s long-standing policy of asserting its right to a nuclear program while leaving some room for compromise on the specifics.

 

[william]

In my opinion, the US will not attack Iran. Trump is primarily looking for money to reduce the American debt, hence his presence in the Middle East. Moreover, wars are expensive, and no matter how powerful a state, it never knows if this war will be long.

IMO President Trump will order irans nuclear infrastructure destroyed if they don't knock off the "death to America and Isreal" BS and give up their quest for the bomb. I just don't think the American build up is the largest in US history. So far.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

They clarified with another statement. So. No, no.

Iran out right refuses to scaleback, dismantle, or stop enrichment. Peiord. So talks are essentially dead and will fail given that stance as that is somthing Trump and in Congress (both sides) have said is a absolute no-go.

Refusing to dismantle enrichment facilities does not mean they aren't willing to scale back enrichment.

 

[NuclearID]

Refusing to dismantle enrichment facilities does not mean they aren't willing to scale back enrichment.

Removal of centrifuge is only way to be at least (almost 100%) sure they are not. Also pretty sure at some point recently they said no scaleback on table eithe

Their enrichment program top to bottom is not on the table for Iran. They have made that extra clear not sure how they have not? And can't believe I'm arguing reality in the sense of what has been said as a fact by Iran? I know, don't ever believe what terrorists say. But I'm not (trying to at least) argue over what Iran has in said. Their centrifuge program is definitely without a doubt not on the negotiating table. They have made it pretty darn clear through this whole speel with US talks.

Just stalling the inevitable. Either they get a working nuke in time or we blow them up. I just don't see how this ends either way given the lines drawn by both US, Iran, and Israel.

Also don't forget Israel may just go in and bomb the nuke facilities by themselves. Iran and others have actually noted this concern publicly and Israel recently told US it's finished preparation to attack Iran. Which could drag the US in regardless.

 

[GBS61]

Explain to me why Israel had the right to possess nuclear weapons without them signing anything, and in secret, no less. Let's just say Pandora's box has been open for a long time. Israel has no more right to possess nuclear weapons than Iran does.
I think I'm going to get a lot of dislike.

Note: I'm not a supporter of Iran, nor of Israel, nor of all those barbaric Middle Eastern countries.

 

[Irag8er]

Explain to me why Israel had the right to possess nuclear weapons without them signing anything, and in secret, no less. Let's just say Pandora's box has been open for a long time. Israel has no more right to possess nuclear weapons than Iran does.
I think I'm going to get a lot of dislike.

Note: I'm not a supporter of Iran, nor of Israel, nor of all those barbaric Middle Eastern countries.

Israel is widely believed to have developed nuclear weapons in the late 1960s. The program likely began in the 1950s, with significant progress by the mid-1960s at the Dimona reactor in the Negev desert, built with French assistance. Estimates suggest Israel had its first operational nuclear weapon by 1966–1968, though the exact date remains classified as Israel maintains a policy of "nuclear ambiguity," neither confirming nor denying its arsenal. Declassified documents and whistleblower accounts, like Mordechai Vanunu’s in 1986, support this timeline.

Countries weren’t being as closely monitored as they are these days.

 

[Publius]

Removal of centrifuge is only way to be at least (almost 100%) sure they are not. Also pretty sure at some point recently they said no scaleback on table eithe

Their enrichment program top to bottom is not on the table for Iran. They have made that extra clear not sure how they have not? And can't believe I'm arguing reality in the sense of what has been said as a fact by Iran? I know, don't ever believe what terrorists say. But I'm not (trying to at least) argue over what Iran has in said. Their centrifuge program is definitely without a doubt not on the negotiating table. They have made it pretty darn clear through this whole speel with US talks.

Just stalling the inevitable. Either they get a working nuke in time or we blow them up. I just don't see how this ends either way given the lines drawn by both US, Iran, and Israel.

Also don't forget Israel may just go in and bomb the nuke facilities by themselves. Iran and others have actually noted this concern publicly and Israel recently told US it's finished preparation to attack Iran. Which could drag the US in regardless.

So they have dozens if not hundreds of them. They remove 1/2 or 3/4 of existing centrifuges. Hand over most of their refined stockpiles. That is a physical scaling back of capabilities.

All that said will the IRG and ayatollahs totally denuclearize I don’t think so. And I don’t think they will agree to sufficient IAEI inspections to ensure they have actually scaled back.

So we will see what Trump will do

 

[Publius]

And this is why I think Trumps visit this week to the Gulf States and preordained economic and diplomatic deal announced were a two prong effort.
Good for general stability, and pressure on Iran.

 

[JPod]

not only that but you can't trust them. You can't negotiate with terrorists.