|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43626 Posts
On March 03 2026 02:35 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 01:40 Legan wrote:Iran has reason to make the situation as bad as possible before returning to negotiations. Hitting oil production and targeting the leaders of countries hosting US bases are obvious steps in this direction. Getting Europe involved would also be great, as Europe is already pissed off with Trump, and memories from the Iraq war are not great. If the US lands any soldiers, it would easily prolong the war and greatly increase the number of casualties. It would also make any retreat look like a defensive victory. Increasing others' stakes is smart when your own are already getting killed by missiles, by mobs, or executed under a new regime. They stand a good chance of uniting more countries against Iran and proving that they're too dangerous and reckless to hold stockpiles of weapons and weapons manufacturing plants for the near future. That's not a good spot to be in for negotiating an end to the war with some current capabilities intact.
I'm not sure you understand their strategy. It's essentially to be a bitter pill.
Attacking every other country doesn't meaningfully change the military situation, they're already completely overmatched in the air. The US plus a combination of pissed off Arab states is within a rounding error of the US less a combination of friendly Arab states. It just doesn't make a difference.
Their leverage is diplomatic/economic. If they can be annoying/expensive enough to enough groups with influence over the US then they can cause the US to get a lot of angry phone calls asking when this is going to be over. They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here.
|
Northern Ireland26304 Posts
On March 03 2026 02:35 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 01:40 Legan wrote:Iran has reason to make the situation as bad as possible before returning to negotiations. Hitting oil production and targeting the leaders of countries hosting US bases are obvious steps in this direction. Getting Europe involved would also be great, as Europe is already pissed off with Trump, and memories from the Iraq war are not great. If the US lands any soldiers, it would easily prolong the war and greatly increase the number of casualties. It would also make any retreat look like a defensive victory. Increasing others' stakes is smart when your own are already getting killed by missiles, by mobs, or executed under a new regime. They stand a good chance of uniting more countries against Iran and proving that they're too dangerous and reckless to hold stockpiles of weapons and weapons manufacturing plants for the near future. That's not a good spot to be in for negotiating an end to the war with some current capabilities intact.
Who are Iran gonna piss off that they haven’t already pissed off?
I think their response is relatively sensible from their perspective, show they’re capable of some damage potential. An Iran showing its fangs is in a better spot from one that just rolls over.
From a general humanitarian perspective, of course I’d rather Iran weren’t throwing missiles and drones about.
Given the scenario an Iran who shows it’s both capable and willing to be a giant pain in the arse regional probably serves it better
Edit - Kwark said it better
|
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse.
Gulf states are realistic and logical enough to realize that even if such an entity could be "negotiated" with it could not be trusted in the future not to randomly crash out again and fire missiles or bomb things as it has a long history of doing. Let alone continue on the missile and nuke path.
|
Solid case for countries cutting ties with the United States.
|
United States43626 Posts
On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse.
Gulf states are realistic and logical enough to realize that even if such an entity could be "negotiated" with it could not be trusted in the future not to randomly crash out again and fire missiles or bomb things as it has a long history of doing. Let alone continue on the missile and nuke path.
Randomly? This just happened out of nowhere? Nobody knows what might have triggered it?
|
yeah Iran has quite a bit of freedom due to being on its last legs and "cornered". if you are the odd one out you might as well play the part.
no plan "wishy washy let's gamble" with a bombing campaign for a couple weeks in the ballpark of countless billions of dollars?
you either finish what you started or you don't start at all. Iran is a ridiculously huge country with about 90million people.
they might have hated the Ayatollah and good riddance to him... but you don't erase many generations of "death to the US/Israel" by cutting off a hydra's head and "hopes and prayers" as the guiding principle thereafter - this is not gun violence.
The Goalposts of the Iran War Keep Shifting@Reason
Trump himself has given several different answers about what his goals are. He has told different journalists that he is fighting for "freedom for the people" of Iran, for a leadership shuffle similar to "what we did in Venezuela," or for a diplomatic deal. Trump also said that he has "very good choices" for who should lead Iran, only to claim later that "none of the people we had in mind are going to come to power, because they are all dead."
And the original justification that Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance offered—stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb—seems to have completely fallen by the wayside. There's "no indication" from satellite imagery that either the U.S. or Israel has attacked any Iranian nuclear sites so far, U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi told an emergency meeting of nuclear officials on Monday morning.
I mean... what do you even say to that lol. this is not a bad slapstick movie, this is the leader of the free world haha.
|
On March 03 2026 02:00 KT_Elwood wrote:
Bush Junior got about 5-10 times more US Soldiers killed per opponent casualty than Bush senior - who was smart enough to not leave an occupational force.
I am not sure what the US is to gain from all of this. Will they install another Shah? Will Baron Trump just become Prince of Persia?
The only reasonable explanation is: Netanyahu has Epstein knowledge that Trump also fears... A war in the middle East might be the right way to not have midterm elections.
Did you really think Trump had any real plan for that?
In the recent interview for NYT when they asked for his plans for a transition of power there he said he hoped that Iranian military forces would simply hand over their weapons to the people...
|
Canada11434 Posts
I mean... what do you even say to that lol. this is not a bad slapstick movie, this is the leader of the free world haha.
It's actually managed cause doubt in some of Trump's sane-washers.
So far we've heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might have been, depending who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people, they are now free, or might be, depending on who seizes power, and we have no idea who that will be. The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused. -Matt Walsh
Of course he'll be back to defending the expanding power of the executive branch a week from now. But the Epstein Wars are sowing a little bit of trouble amongst those that were supposedly against starting wars in the Middle East... of course a new line I've seen, is Trump is not starting a war, but ending a 47 year old war. Good one. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
|
United States43626 Posts
On March 03 2026 03:59 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 02:00 KT_Elwood wrote:
Bush Junior got about 5-10 times more US Soldiers killed per opponent casualty than Bush senior - who was smart enough to not leave an occupational force.
I am not sure what the US is to gain from all of this. Will they install another Shah? Will Baron Trump just become Prince of Persia?
The only reasonable explanation is: Netanyahu has Epstein knowledge that Trump also fears... A war in the middle East might be the right way to not have midterm elections.
Did you really think Trump had any real plan for that? In the recent interview for NYT when they asked for his plans for a transition of power there he said he hoped that Iranian military forces would simply hand over their weapons to the people...
Hesgeth placed the burden for the defeat of the Iranian state on the Iranian people.We hope the Iranian people take advantage of this incredible opportunity. President Trump has been clear: Now is your time.
If, in your own public propaganda, you're presenting the adversary as having all the power over how the war ends, that's not a sign of high confidence. That's laying the groundwork for declaring victory and withdrawing leaving behind an Iran that is still standing. That's laying the groundwork for agreeing to a retreat if they're willing to go back to not fucking up the area.
Typically your theory of victory doesn't rely on the enemy simply giving up. Trump's does.
|
On March 03 2026 04:07 Falling wrote:
of course a new line I've seen, is Trump is not starting a war, but ending a 47 year old war. Good one. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
You have to be the dumbest person on Earth to believe it. So I wholeheartedly believe at least 2/3rds of Republicans will be agreeing with that statement by next month.
|
Has Iran actually launched any attacks totally unexpectedly and unprovoked in past two or three decades? All the recent ones have been clear follow-ups and escalations from active conflicts, and quite clear responses that have been signalled beforehand. Not really anything random or irrational that some seem to think. Other groups have carried out attacks, sure, but reducing them to mere proxies is stupid. For example, Houthis were the target of a long bombing campaign that targeted their food supply and caused a famine, which makes them understandably eager to give some payback to Saudis and the US. Also, considering how the US has funded and armed different organisations in the region, it is hard to see the difference. As long as organisations matter to local governments, they are a means of gaining influence.
|
On March 03 2026 04:07 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +I mean... what do you even say to that lol. this is not a bad slapstick movie, this is the leader of the free world haha. It's actually managed cause doubt in some of Trump's sane-washers. Show nested quote +So far we've heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might have been, depending who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people, they are now free, or might be, depending on who seizes power, and we have no idea who that will be. The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused. -Matt Walsh Of course he'll be back to defending the expanding power of the executive branch a week from now. But the Epstein Wars are sowing a little bit of trouble amongst those that were supposedly against starting wars in the Middle East... of course a new line I've seen, is Trump is not starting a war, but ending a 47 year old war. Good one. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
I mean these influencers know what is up, they are the closest to the (basest) of the base. and MAGA can't be happy, some things you don't bullshit or lie your way out of.
like cost of living spiralling or having local hospitals on the chopping block due to the big beautiful bill, or starting costly wars just so you can end them I presume?
|
Canada11434 Posts
Has Iran actually launched any attacks totally unexpectedly and unprovoked in past two or three decades?
Israel has a lot of reason to go after Iran and weaponize Trump's desire to do something, anything to distract from... pretty much anything in his administration, domestic or foreign. Iran has been funding terrorist organization for years, sacrificing Sunnis in their proxy war. And they helped keep Assad in power. Iran is not a good actor in the region. But US? Nothing directly as far as I know.
But Iran was willing to negotiate, but any pragmatists within the regime were undercut when Trump ended Obama's deal. There's a reason Iran's response to Trump's tariffs was 'do whatever the hell you want. We don't care.' Whoever thought US could be reasoned with has been proven wrong. You might as well fling missiles at all your neighbours.
|
On March 03 2026 04:24 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 04:07 Falling wrote:I mean... what do you even say to that lol. this is not a bad slapstick movie, this is the leader of the free world haha. It's actually managed cause doubt in some of Trump's sane-washers. So far we've heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might have been, depending who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people, they are now free, or might be, depending on who seizes power, and we have no idea who that will be. The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused. -Matt Walsh Of course he'll be back to defending the expanding power of the executive branch a week from now. But the Epstein Wars are sowing a little bit of trouble amongst those that were supposedly against starting wars in the Middle East... of course a new line I've seen, is Trump is not starting a war, but ending a 47 year old war. Good one. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. I mean these influencers know what is up, they are the closest to the (basest) of the base. and MAGA can't be happy, some things you don't bullshit or lie your way out of. like cost of living spiralling or having local hospitals on the chopping block due to the big beautiful bill, or starting costly wars just so you can end them I presume?
To add to this, Mark Dice and his viewer base are not happy with the US attacking Iran.
Fox News reports that the only area where Trump has a net positive approval rating is on border security. Regarding the economy, foreign policy..etc he sits around 40%
He botched Greenland.
Only 28% of independents approve of his performance overll
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/where-trump-stands-eyes-americans-ahead-state-union-address
For me, he has got 8 months to pivot off of his tariff policies or he gets a thumbs down. How can US manufacturers compete when they have to pay sky high prices for steel and aluminum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
