• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Iran

@Tibs - and you conveniently sidestepped the very report from the IAEA who were to be the watchdog preventing a nuclear Iran stating:
Iran has since refused to show what happened to its stockpile of highly enriched uranium or allow IAEA inspectors access to sites where enrichment took place.
Click to expand...

so, again, devoid of who was or was not stumbling around the White House, Israel has shown they would and could do what they wanted to when they wanted. The pager operation displayed that quite clearly.

Also, while you're touting what Tulsi said and how she said it, you're also forgetting that Tulsi has always been against war/military in Iran. CIA Director Ratcliffe goes against Tulsi's opinion to say that there was an imminent threat of a nuclear Iran.

but, again, are you wanting to wait until Iran publicly displays their nuclear capability to confirm it to the globe or nip this in the bud before it has a chance to bloom? there's only one right answer.
 
Hypocycloids said:
In taking your sensationalizing down a notch…it wasn’t an insurrection,
Click to expand...
Right, it was an attempted insurrection.
Hypocycloids said:
nor were we “lied to”.
Click to expand...
So Irans nuclear capabilities were anything but obliterated and there was an eminent threat because Israel was going to attack Iran? Then we were still lied to.
 
Tim Steelersfan said:
If you would only bother to read what is shared with you.

It makes 100% sense. From above:

It gets worse. A senior administration official told Fox News that Kent was a known leaker who had been cut out of the president's intelligence briefings months ago. He wasn't a whistleblower with inside knowledge. He was already on the outside looking in — and the administration knew it.
Click to expand...
Again, why didn’t Trump fire him?
 
Tibs said:
Hey, Supe. Thanks for the civil, measured response.



Here is Trump's Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, from today's hearing on the Hill.



Seems pretty clear to me. Netanyahu evidently convinced Trump otherwise, and spooked him into action.

In response to this quip, "this current regime that you romanticize as remaining intact and able to continue operating," I'm not romanticizing anything. I'd love to see this brutal Iranian regime overthrown, with a return to some semblance of democracy, and normalcy, for the once, mostly secular Persian nation, before they were overrun by fanatical Muslims.

I am simply pointing out two things... that to this day, missiles and drones continue to land in Israel and neighboring states, as the Iranians decentralized military command years ago, preparing for such an invasion. And the Straight of Hormuz is under constant threat, completely shutting down safe passage for US & allied tankers and cargo ships. This is obviously untenable.

As far as the Iranian regime "remaining intact," I'm not saying that, Tulsi Gabbard is.



Largely degraded? Yes. Appears to be intact? Yes.

There's much more heavy lifting to do, likely including boots on the ground, if Trump truly wants to root out this regime once and for all.

He would have been much better off building a coalition within NATO beforehand, bringing allies onboard, as was done in Iraq and Afghanistan, then proceed with military operations. Now he's looking like a fool, trying to drum up help and support after the fact, particularly after he's spent months on end mocking, insulting and infuriating our allies across the pond with his reckless, bellicose comments.

I pray, for the whole lot of us, that he's somehow able to regain control of the situation and see things through, to avoid the plethora of negative outcomes that military and foreign policy experts have been pontificating on for years, if not decades.
Click to expand...
While more rational than anything posted by Trog, I don't think your stance goes far enough.

Iran is a rogue, terrorist state. They have lied and deflected for many years. They have no one trustworthy in any part of leadership, and will continue to be these people no matter what. The only thing to do is to get rid of them or choose to let them be a part of the world landscape still. The only responsible thing to do is to get rid of them.

Boots on the ground would be good, but not necessary. We can get the locals to do the work and/or get those loyal to the Crown Prince to get set up. The Kurds will help to some degree, and Israel will undoubtedly send SF to help. We already have, if I read it correctly.

It is passed time to rid the world of these idiots. It's just the fact of the matter.
 
Superman said:
but, again, are you wanting to wait until Iran publicly displays their nuclear capability to confirm it to the globe or nip this in the bud before it has a chance to bloom? there's only one right answer.
Click to expand...

I just want our government to act smartly, wisely, and responsibly, you know, as if they're the adults in the room. Like with DOGE, ICE, and everything in between, I don't think any sane person claims these aren't issues that need to be dealt with. It's how Trump and his motley's crew of a cabinet go about dealing with things - recklessly, belligerently - is what creates boundless anxiety, antagonism, and consternation.

But who cares what I think. I hope he finds a way to get the job done, and we find a way out of this, with the situation we end up with not being worse than what it was before they got started.

As far as IAEA, I have a few friends in their management in Vienna, and believe me, if you look hard enough, you'll find articles and quotes from all across the spectrum regarding Iran, from having nukes tomorrow, to no nukes at all. From all credible accounts, their nuke program was not at a stage, or as severe, as how folks like Ratcliffe, Hegseth, and others, would like you to believe. But that's just half of the story. What equates a true threat level is somewhat subjective, when a President just says, I've seen enough, there's enough meat on the bone that I'm going to act. And as the President, Trump has every right to do that. I'm not going to second-guess that decision, though I have very serious doubts about it, given the past few decades with Iran, and their cooperation with international agencies. And that too, has had its ups and downs. I don't know if I feel any more comfortable with Pakistan's, India's, and particularly Russia's nuclear arsenal. North Korea has 50+ nuclear warheads.

My biggest issue with the Iranian regime is they're cold-blooded mass murderers who've slaughtered tens of thousands of their own citizens, and organize and finance terrorist cells all across the ME. So taking them out and instigating regime change, is certainly a warranted course of action. Ideally done on an international level, with a coalition of nations stepping up on the military side to exert pressure, and carry out operations. Here, Bibi and Trump decided to go alone. Let's hope they can pull it off.

Anyway, good discussion. Let's hope things work themselves out over the next few weeks and months.
 
Last edited:
Tibs said:
I just want our government to act smartly, wisely, and responsibly, you know, as if they're the adults in the room. Like with DOGE, ICE, and everything in between, I don't think any sane person claims these aren't issues that need to be dealt with. It's how Trump and his motley's crew of a cabinet go about dealing with things - recklessly, belligerently - is what creates boundless anxiety, antagonism, and consternation.

But who cares what I think. I hope he finds a way to get the job done, and we find a way out of this, with the situation we end up with not being worse than what it was before they got started.

As far as IAEA, I have a few friends in their management in Vienna, and believe me, if you look hard enough, you'll find articles and quotes from all across the spectrum regarding Iran, from having nukes tomorrow, to no nukes at all. From all credible accounts, their nuke program was not at a stage, or as severe, as how folks like Ratcliffe, Hegseth, and others, would like you to believe. But that's just half of the story. What equates a true threat level is somewhat subjective, when a President just says, I've seen enough, there's enough meat on the bone that I'm going to act. And as the President, Trump has every right to do that. I'm not going to second-guess that decision, though I have very serious doubts about it, given the past few decades with Iran, and their cooperation with international agencies. And that too, has had its ups and downs. I don't know if I feel any more comfortable with Pakistan's, India's, and particularly Russia's nuclear arsenal. North Korea has 50+ nuclear warheads.

Anyway, good discussion. Let's hope things work themselves out over the next few weeks and months.
Click to expand...
No matter the progress Iran has made towards the bomb, they are clearly trying to get one, and that is bad enough in their case.
 
Djfan said:
No matter the progress Iran has made towards the bomb, they are clearly trying to get one, and that is bad enough in their case.
Click to expand...

Djfan, if you dig into it a bit, the opposite is true, if you look at the course of negotiations. They agreed to countless reductions of enriched uranium, and were nearing a deal. Unfortunately, Trump sent Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who totally misconstrued the progress being made, and pressured by Netanyahu, sold Trump the duplicitous story, which is basically Israel's take on the matter, who've been itching to invade Iran for decades. Anyway, it's water under the bridge at this point. What's done is done. Now, let's just hope there is some semblance of a happy ending to this ordeal. Ensuring safe passage in the Straight of Hormuz would be a good place to start.
 
Tibs said:
Djfan, if you dig into it a bit, the opposite is true, if you look at the course of negotiations. They agreed to countless reductions of enriched uranium, and were nearing a deal. Unfortunately, Trump sent Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who totally misconstrued the progress being made, and pressured by Netanyahu, sold Trump the duplicitous story, which is basically Israel's take on the matter, who've been itching to invade Iran for decades. Anyway, it's water under the bridge at this point. What's done is done. Now, let's just hope there is some semblance of a happy ending to this ordeal. Ensuring safe passage in the Straight of Hormuz would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...
The only solution is the removal of the Islamic Republic.
 
Djfan said:
The only solution is the removal of the Islamic Republic.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. Unfortunately, it's not solely a governmental or military organization per se, but a theocracy, which extends its tentacles to every level of Iranian society, from schools, to health care, to the economy, and so on. So your best hope is to destroy, or seriously diminish - if you can - its military and policing forces, which are formidable and decentralized, which has wreaked fear and terror among the population for decades.

Look at what we're - and Iranians yearning for freedom - are up against. Together, the regular armed forces, the Artesh, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, are made up of 610,000 active-duty personnel plus 350,000 reserve and trained personnel. In addition, there is a 260,000+ strong police force, including border guards, under the direct control of the supreme leader, as in the new one, who just popped out of the blue the moment his dad got eliminated. This one is 30 years younger, and even more of an extremist than his dad was. And all of these forces are well-armed with plenty of (cough, Russian) equipment, and have shown no hesitancy to slaughter masses of their own people.

So that's the primary goal, to knock out this sizable strong-arm of the Islamic State. Only at that point would it be reasonable to expect, to instigate, any sort of popular uprising, where masses of citizens push their way to the forefront, and begin organizing some alternative to the Islamic Republic. It can be done... but not after a few days or weeks of dropping missiles on military sites and taking out a few government officials, including the Ayatollah. The bullpen is deep, on all fronts. This is a nation of 90M+ people, across a large swath of territory.


1773871144513.png
 
Last edited:
Tibs said:
Can't argue with that. Unfortunately, it's not solely a governmental or military organization per se, but a theocracy, which extends its tentacles to every level of Iranian society, from schools, to health care, to the economy, and so on. So your best hope is to destroy, or seriously diminish - if you can - its military and policing forces, which are formidable and decentralized, which has wreaked fear and terror among the population for decades.

Look at what we're - and Iranians yearning for freedom - are up against. Together, the regular armed forces, the Artesh, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, are made up of 610,000 active-duty personnel plus 350,000 reserve and trained personnel. In addition, there is a 260,000+ strong police force, including border guards, under the direct control of the supreme leader, as in the new one, who just popped out of the blue the moment his dad got eliminated. This one is 30 years younger, and even more of an extremist than his dad was. And all of these forces are well-armed with plenty of (cough, Russian) equipment, and have shown no hesitancy to slaughter masses of their own people.

So that's the primary goal, to knock out this sizable strong-arm of the Islamic State. Only at that point would it be reasonable to expect, to instigate, any sort of popular uprising, where masses of citizens push their way to the forefront, and begin organizing some alternative to the Islamic Republic. It can be done... but not after a few days or weeks of dropping missiles on military sites and taking out a few government officials, including the Ayatollah. The bullpen is deep, on all fronts. This is a nation of 90M+ people, across a large swath of territory.


View attachment 16910
Click to expand...
Right, but it is clear that the citizens there and the citizens who have left, are not on board with the IROI, at least for the most part. This can be done.
 
BLITZ said:
Thier is a reason most people do not talk politics at work or in most settings.

We would all probs get along if we met for a game.

Just in this forum it all gets rough. We can all hide behind computers and say what ever come to mind. Would just never happen in the real world
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that Blitz. From my experience, and again it's just mine being a fiscal conservative, I don't talk politics unless I know that I'm in a group of like minded people, and my conservative friends do the same. However, I can't count the times when liberal opinions are made known in mixed company leaving everyone feeling either uncomfortable or wishing the screamers would just change the subject.
 
ZonaBurgh said:
I'm not so sure about that Blitz. From my experience, and again it's just mine being a fiscal conservative, I don't talk politics unless I know that I'm in a group of like minded people, and my conservative friends do the same. However, I can't count the times when liberal opinions are made known in mixed company leaving everyone feeling either uncomfortable or wishing the screamers would just change the subject.
Click to expand...

My experience exactly.
In mixed company whenever someone decided to open their mouth about politics, it’s been the liberal retard 100% of the time.
 
Superman said:
well, you certainly managed to downplay a fervent Muslim country with deep oil pockets seeking to establish itself as a major player in the nuclear world, and discard any nervousness that could result from that. As has been shown - this current regime that you romanticize as remaining intact and able to continue operating, has been the driver behind numerous terror attacks across the world. It shouldn't even take a double digit IQ to imagine what would happen if they were to have their own nukes.

The nuclear deal Obama signed with Iran was just for show. I'm sure we all wanted to take the Iranian regime for their word - THIS TIME - but they proved over and over again that they could not be trusted. They do not need nuclear energy to keep the lights on. They are one of the largest oil exporting countries in the world at 1.6 million barrels per day, and we all know oil is used for electricity.

ah, but the IAEA was playing watchdog on their nuclear program and Iran was open, right?




So, being a business-minded person, @Tibs - you know that for something to get included in a report there most likely were discussions before. Either via phone, email, or whatever passes for communication in that 5th world country that exports 1.6 million barrels of oil per day.

because, as that link shows, there's more...



Regardless of our POTUS, Iran was playing games with the IAEA. So much so that they were forced to report it.

While no one wants to see American troops put in harm's way, it is what they are trained for. The loss of any American troop's life in that shitthole country is tragic. Yet we were forced to play World Cop because no other country would - except Israel.

I doubt Israel would need our help to wipe that regime off the planet. They've already shown they will do what they have to or want to, regardless of who is eating ice cream at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So what this comes down to is you're either pro-nuclear Iran or con-nuclear Iran.

No, @IndySteel that didnt read "pro nuking Iran". Though, I've often said - if they want nukes, we could lob some over and let them play catch.

Aside from all that - were you ignoring the reports of the Iranian regime wantonly killing its own people just recently? Being a hard core liberal, are you accepting the brutality shown to women and children by the alleged "men" of that regime?

Something had to be done at some point. It was only going to get worse and worse.
Click to expand...
Excellent response Supe, but it will simply fall on deaf ears.
One only has to ask why a country with enormous oil reserves needs a nuclear program? I mean it's not like they used the environment as their reasoning.
 
Troglodyte said:
A person can’t read with their eyes rolled to the back of their head.
Click to expand...

No one is stunned by this comment. You roll your eyes at every reply, daring not read anything that would conflict with your religion.
 
Tibs said:
I just want our government to act smartly, wisely, and responsibly, you know, as if they're the adults in the room.
Click to expand...

Simple question. Where were you for 4 years under Biden when this was never, ever the case? We didn't hear a single criticism from you then.

But now. Now you are outraged.
 
Tim Steelersfan said:
"You sit on a throne of lies!"
//Floggy
Click to expand...

I just can't with that guy. It's like arguing with a 3 year old. He's worse than the legions of bogus bot accounts running propaganda 24/7 on social media. They have farms of that stuff and it's increased 20 fold since Trump took office.

I do get a kick out of reading yinz guys beat downs on him...lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top