Israel, US Strike Iran After Weeks Of Warning, Explosions Heard In Tehran

https://twitter.com/x/status/2043646722732101769

Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting: "I spoke yesterday with Vice President J.D. Vance. He called me from his plane on his way back from Islamabad. He reported to me in detail, as this administration does every day, about the development of the negotiations. In this case, the explosion in the negotiations. The explosion came from the American side, which could not tolerate Iran's blatant violation of the agreement to enter the negotiations. The agreement was that they would cease fire, and the Iranians would immediately open the gates. They did not do that. The Americans could not accept that. He also made it clear to me that the main issue on the agenda for President Trump and the United States is the removal of all enriched material, and ensuring that there is no more enrichment in the coming years, and that could be in decades, no enrichment within Iran. That is their focus, and of course it is also important to us."
Click to expand...

I do not see any possibility other than a ground invasion if the enrichment needs to be stopped permanently for now. The facilities are too deep and there are no conventional weapons present with the Israelis that may allow them to strike that deep. Also, the material already enriched will need a ground OP if it needs to be taken out from Iran (unless things can be solved via dialogue). If the IRGC really digs its heels, the coming days will be more painful for the O&NG markets.
 

Financial Times chief economics commentator Martin Wolf joins NDTV to break down the escalating Iran crisis and its massive global economic impact. With a dual blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, Wolf warns of the biggest energy disruption since the 1970s oil shocks. He explains how oil prices could surge, supply chains may be severely hit, and why countries like India remain vulnerable.
 
BMD said:
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
He is theoretically right though. Victories in wars / battles are defined by whether the party achieved its political / military goals defined before the conflict or not. If it does not, it is a failure. Just like the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine was a failure. They failed to install a puppet govt in Ukraine or secure their neutrality, which were their initial war aims. After that failure, they recalibrated their goals, but the initial invasion still remains a failure. The latter operation is still in progress.

Similarly, despite inflicting significant damages on Iranian military and political leadership, the Islamic regime and IRGC are still in power. Their nuclear facilities may have been damaged but if the war stops in its current phase, Iran will again will be able to build the nuclear weapons. The US has failed to achieve its initial war aims yet and I don't think it can do so without putting boots on the ground. So far its operation remains a political failure despite being a military success. This is despite not counting the geopolitical goodwill and influence lost by the US. However, if it can achieve its goals, it will be a success.

PS : These things don't apply to Pakistanis though. They will start a war to capture Kashmir, completely fail in that and end up defending Lahore and then declare that defence of Lahore was a war victory (1965).
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
Jarvis said:
He is theoretically right though. Victories in wars / battles are defined by whether the party achieved its political / military goals defined before the conflict or not. If it does not, it is a failure. Just like the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine was a failure. They failed to install a puppet govt in Ukraine or secure their neutrality, which were their initial war aims. After that failure, they recalibrated their goals, but the initial invasion still remains a failure. The latter operation is still in progress.

Similarly, despite inflicting significant damages on Iranian military and political leadership, the Islamic regime and IRGC are still in power. Their nuclear facilities may have been damaged but if the war stops in its current phase, Iran will again will be able to build the nuclear weapons. The US has failed to achieve its initial war aims yet and I don't think it can do so without putting boots on the ground. So far its operation remains a political failure despite being a military success. This is despite not counting the geopolitical goodwill and influence lost by the US. However, if it can achieve its goals, it will be a success.

PS : These things don't apply to Pakistanis though. They will start a war to capture Kashmir, completely fail in that and end up defending Lahore and then declare that defence of Lahore was a war victory (1965).
Click to expand...
He is wrong, people are making up their own version of what the goals were and weren't. The goal may well have just been to punish Iran for all their recent BS, which includes giving Hamas - the perpetrator of the Oct 2023 attacks - $350m/year, as well as known affiliations with Houthis and Hezbollah, which it used to aggravate the situation before launching BM salvos at Israel itself. This was achieved. Side goals were setting back Iran's military and nuclear progress, which has also been achieved.

Nice to have goals would have been regime collapse, which may or may not still happen. People are deciding that because this one goal hasn't happened yet that it's a complete failure but several important members of the original regime and their replacements are dead and a blockade is currently being enforced, which deprives Iran of $435m/day (half of their $300bn GDP) on top of the estimated $270bn worth of damage already done.

That's not a win. People can and will find solutions for their Hormuz crap, even if they don't yet back down or get invaded. They will not find a solution to their problem because there isn't one. Currently ships not from Iran are leaving Hormuz, but Iranian ships are not, they've lost, some people are just in denial, like Monty Python's Black Knight.
 
BMD said:
He is wrong, people are making up their own version of what the goals were and weren't. The goal may well have just been to punish Iran for all their recent BS, which includes giving Hamas - the perpetrator of the Oct 2023 attacks - $350m/year, as well as known affiliations with Houthis and Hezbollah, which it used to aggravate the situation before launching BM salvos at Israel itself. This was achieved. Side goals were setting back Iran's military and nuclear progress, which has also been achieved.

Nice to have goals would have been regime collapse, which may or may not still happen. People are deciding that because this one goal hasn't happened yet that it's a complete failure but several important members of the original regime and their replacements are dead and a blockade is currently being enforced, which deprives Iran of $435m/day (half of their $300bn GDP) on top of the estimated $270bn worth of damage already done.

That's not a win. People can and will find solutions for their Hormuz crap, even if they don't yet back down or get invaded. They will not find a solution to their problem because there isn't one. Currently ships not from Iran are leaving Hormuz, but Iranian ships are not, they've lost, some people are just in denial, like Monty Python's Black Knight.
Click to expand...

Hello Sir

You should Read Trump's Truth Social latest post about UK PM Starmer 🤣
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Hello Sir

You should Read Trump's Truth Social latest post about UK PM Starmer 🤣
Click to expand...
I never voted for Starmer but I see his position, Trump told European NATO members to take full reponsibility for Ukraine war costs so he could concentrate elsewhere, so they did, and he knows this. So whilst Starmer is a twat, he is not wrong on this, TME is up to Trump and Gulf allies. Europe is our reponsibility, TME is his (and Gulf allies).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom