First casualties confirmed overseas from yesterday
3 dead and 5 critically wounded. I was speaking with friends in Bahrain late last night and they had deaths and wounded evac'ed to Qatar as a result.
I asked him how things were going and he said "it's wild". Said that they are hitting some (using Patriots) but also missing some.
I was glad he checked in last night.
93 Replies
5mo
Spent way too much time there a couple of times..
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
were hit. Not totally destroyed but they aren't working anymore. $300-400M radar system. It was one of the first things Iran targeted.
(In response to this post by ftsumterhokie)
5mo
Pretty precise targeting against our radars...
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
Drones can be piloted by humans at any point, especially in the terminal area.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
2:16 PM today ---->
"WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior White House official said Sunday that Iran's “new potential leadership” has suggested it is open to talks with the United States after American and Israeli forces launched a major attack against Tehran, killing the country's supreme leader and other high-ranking officials.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations, said President Donald Trump says he is “eventually” willing to talk but that for now the military operation “continues unabated.” The official did not say who the potential new Iranian leaders are or how they made their alleged willingness to talk known."
Any thoughts here?
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
as unifying national figure; my worry is that Reza Cyrus doesn't have the chops.
He has said he's going to lead a transitional government and that "the military will side with us"
** Edited by mancunian at 3/2/2026, 10:30:42 AM
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
with the US anymore.
(In response to this post by VTVOICE)
5mo
crap and can't be trusted.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
sobering. The BEQs are heavily reinforced. Everything else, not so much.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
E
EDGEMAN
5mo
The Alcohol Support Unit. I think everyone on the ships would head to the Desert Dome to drink beer.
(In response to this post by SDHokie)
5mo
Iranian drone strike hits an ammunition warehouse at an Army base in Erbil (Kurdish region of Iraq)
Secondary explosions (from the munitions) and a large fire were observed at the scene.
(In response to this post by SDHokie)
5mo
And I was paid to do vulnerability assessments for utilities at US Navy facilities in Bahrain, UAE, and Djibouti.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
I think we severely underestimated the Iranians. They are a very sophisticated country and to be fair, they just want to be done with US Sanctions. I don't think the military option was ever going to work and success like this only gets them committed to the end. Our only hope internally is if the Iraqi Kurds go to Iran and help the Iranian Kurds do something. However, would you do something like that with our track record with the Kurds?
(In response to this post by SDHokie)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
sophisticated as you say they sorely underestimated how long they could delay and stall. You say to be fair they just want to be done with Sanctions and no doubt they did but, they could have had that just agreeing to scrap their nuclear program. They signed their own death certificates in their arrogance and defiance. I think approaching 48 hours in it is probably early to jump to any conclusions on successes or failures for either side, especially in a volatile area like the Middle East.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
on their nuclear program hours before getting hit by Israel and the USA. They agreed to reduce their existing stockpiles downwards in terms of potency and to be subject to inspectors 24/7 moving forward. They would not accept a total elimination on their nuclear program as they believe they are entitled to nuclear technology for energy and medicine. They also were willing to do this in order to get rid of the sanctions. The Iranians (and the rest of the ME) trust the Omanis so I don't doubt this one bit.
And speaking of volatility in the ME, I have told people that since the June war, I have never seen the Middle East as peaceful as what it has been. I was really surprised at how quickly this escalated given the lack of provocation by Iran since June.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
E
EDGEMAN
5mo
...they turned it down. There is only one reason they need more refined uranium, and it's not a good option for the rest of the world.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
Ukraine was offered security promises for life for their uranium (bombs), and look how that's turned out for them. That promise is only as good as the current administration is in office, as far as they know.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
5mo
And we know who is driving US foreign policy in the Middle East and it's not the USA
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
5mo
The Israelis and UAE have been partners for a long time (I was in Dubai when the first El Al flights arrived from Tel Aviv and went to the airport to witness it...really an emotional time for me) but so have the Israelis and Saudis. Up until the Hamas October attacks, the Israelis and Saudis were working together and close to announcing normalization. The October attacks, in my strong opinion, was done out of desperation to make that stop. It worked but it didn't stop them working behind the scenes.
(In response to this post by Hokebury)
H
HOKIERIT
5mo
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
5mo
Based on my observations in the region and from talking to friends in the region that I trust 100%,
-Tehran isn’t biting on a ceasefire, and they shut down Trump’s outreach today. From their perspective, the June ceasefire was the original sin — it gave Washington and Tel Aviv time to reload, rearm, and come right back for another round. Agreeing to a ceasefire now would just reset the clock for the next strike. And after being hit twice during “negotiations,” even the non‑military factions in Iran are done playing along.
-For Iran, a ceasefire only makes sense once the cost to the U.S. — in lives, equipment, and regional stability — is high enough that Washington can’t casually restart the war later. Until then, they assume any pause is just a prelude to the next attack.
-Since June, Iran has shifted tactics. Instead of big, dramatic salvos, they’re keeping up a steady drumbeat of strikes around the clock. The damage per hit is smaller, but that’s not the point. Tehran has concluded Israel’s pain tolerance is extremely high as long as the U.S. stays in the fight — and they expect the U.S. to stay in for up to four weeks. So the goal isn’t shock; it’s attrition.
-From day one, Iran has been hitting U.S. bases across the region — even in states that are nominally friendly to Washington. Their calculus is simple: the war only ends for good if the U.S. pays a price it can’t shrug off. After Khamenei’s assassination, Tehran says the red lines are gone. They intend to destroy those bases and inflict heavy American casualties, even if the cost to themselves is enormous.
-Iran also knows that many in the U.S. national security world mistook Iran’s past restraint for weakness. They’re now determined to prove the opposite — that they can and will fight the U.S. directly. Ironically, it was the assassination of Khamenei that unlocked this shift.
-That’s why they’ve expanded the battlefield. Striking bases in Cyprus — fully aware it’s an EU member — is deliberate. So was hitting the French base in the UAE. Tehran’s message is that if the West wants this war, the West will have to pay for it. Not just the Gulf. Not just Israel. Europe too.
-Inside Iran, the regime seems far less worried than outsiders expected. Khamenei’s death created a brief opening for unrest, and while people celebrated, there was no mass mobilization. That window is closing fast as the system consolidates around new leadership. Trump’s “four weeks” comment today reflects that same assessment: whatever chance there was for internal collapse is fading, if it ever existed.
** Edited by AirborneHokie96 at 3/1/2026, 3:59:19 PM
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
Our Middle East bases keep getting rocked. Bahrain is in really bad shape this morning. Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar bases are not doing well.
Yes, we have air superiority for the US and Israeli pilots to attack but whatever game plan that involved defending US troops and installations failed already.
(In response to this post by ColoVT82)
5mo
Mostly. Likely, only a subset are in the field with upgrades to deal with non ballistic behavior. Given acquisition timeliness and engineering time
How many they have left. And can launch is something in debate.
The newer video of inbound missile with either 1) penaids, or 2 submunitions is noteworthy. The question is if it WAS submunitions..what type? HE, Bugs, Chem, Rad...?
Logic would lead to beat one so equipped must be defeated prior to fractionation. What was one track is suddenly many
Egads
** Edited by ColoVT82 at 3/2/2026, 11:23:15 AM
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
unload on whoever in Iran thinks they can still fight us for 58 or 60 days, depending on when you start the countdown clock. Between the contributory arsenals we share with Israel, we can continually - unendingly - eliminate any 'new' or 'previously unknown' location of Iranian strike forces (like we don't already know where every Iranian asset is).
Iran does have enormous and capable resolve, but only among a rapidly shrinking hardcore resistance. For every country they assault as though that will hurt us and Israel, they attract new bug swatters just as determined as we are. There's no survivable endgame for Iran if they refuse to surrender.
Yes, as a mere former photographer and current home inspector, my access to all that you know pales by comparison. But my Dad saw combat in WWII, Korea and Nam and he taught me how to post halfway intelligent ****e on message boards, so I can hold my ground.
** Edited by PhotoHokieNC at 3/1/2026, 4:19:08 PM
** Edited by PhotoHokieNC at 3/1/2026, 4:19:51 PM
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
And, who really cares anyway? We all get riled up on occasion, and it all blows over.
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
5mo
I was bragging about the wx sites I used to plan photo shoot travel. Someone took umbrage that I was a photographer “acting like a meteorologist”.
(In response to this post by Coach McGuirk)
5mo
I don't think we can last 60 days with Patriot interceptor missiles...especially not when Commanders in the field are taking direct hits via drones because they cannot use a Patriot to hit them (hitting a drone with a Patriot is like using a baseball bat on drunk animal looking to be fed from the hand).
I have heard that our supply of ATACs and Tomahawks is limited and we are using a lot of them from distance to strike targets. But not sure if that is a real constraint or not. With the Patriots, that's a legit issue.
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
5mo
And are they wearing BDUs or football uniforms?
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
interesting analysis and informed perspective. That, at least so far, does not seem to be being discussed in any great detail in any American media.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
as while ignoring by the right leaning conservative sites is not that surprising the left leaning liberal sites never miss a chance at critique.
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
5mo
is screeching. Almost everyone else is sort of reporting.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
E
EDGEMAN
5mo
First ones in F-35 history
The F22 has yet to have an air to air kill...ever.
Link:
Click for the Tweet!
(In response to this post by PhotoHokieNC)
5mo
unfortunately, 3 F-15Es flown by the USA
All 6 crew members ejected and are ok
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
let's say that hypothetically you are in a decision making capacity for the U.S., the President no less to remove any ambiguity, what would have been your course of action with respect to the Middle East, in general, and Iran, specifically?
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
If I were President, my Middle East policy would start with one principle: stability comes from consistent rules, not from granting one country unlimited exceptions while holding others to impossible standards.
1. Iran’s strategic goal was normalization, not confrontation.
For years, Iran signaled that what it wanted was:
-reintegration into global trade,
-recognition as a legitimate state actor,
-and a path to economic growth through diplomacy rather than isolation.
The U.S. could have leveraged that moment. Instead, we treated diplomacy as a reward rather than a tool, and we allowed another country’s red lines to override our own interests.
2. The U.S. adopted a “no nukes for Iran, no questions for Israel” doctrine — and that double standard destabilized the region.
Israel maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal, refuses inspections, and is not a signatory to the NPT. Iran is an NPT signatory and was under the most intrusive inspection regime in the world. Yet the U.S. enforced a policy that said:
-Israel may have nuclear weapons with zero transparency.
-Iran may not have even the capability for nuclear latency, even under inspection.
That is not a rules‑based order. That is a privilege‑based order. And privilege breeds insecurity, arms races, and conflict.
3. A better U.S. policy would have been normalization-for-compliance, not punishment-for-existence. This means:
-Full diplomatic normalization with Iran in exchange for verifiable limits on enrichment.
-A regional security framework that includes Iran, the GCC, Turkey, and yes, Israel — but with equal obligations.
-A universal nuclear standard: either everyone abides by inspections, or no one gets special exemptions.
This would have reduced tensions, empowered moderates (yes MODERATES) inside Iran, and prevented the cycle of sabotage, sanctions, and shadow war that has defined the last 20 years.
4. The biggest U.S. mistake was outsourcing our Iran policy to Israel’s strategic preferences. Israel’s position has always been maximalist:
-Iran must have zero enrichment,
-zero nuclear latency,
-zero regional influence,
-and zero ability to deter Israel militarily.
That is not a realistic or sustainable basis for U.S. policy. It forces America into perpetual confrontation, even when Iran is signaling de‑escalation or seeking economic integration (WHICH IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING). Iran repeatedly pursued:
-the JCPOA (which it complied with),
-backchannel talks with the U.S.,
-trade agreements with Europe and Asia,
-and regional de‑escalation with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
This was a country trying to pivot toward normal state behavior, not a "rogue actor seeking isolation".
A superpower cannot let another state’s insecurities dictate its grand strategy.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
However, I am not sure how Iran's own words and actions can be ignored with respect to threats and death to both the U.S. and Israel. You put far more stock into Iran's desire for normalization than I do. I view them akin to the fox claiming to behave if you just let them in the hen house. Given the stores and potency of them that they were now offering to reduce can it really be said they complied with the JCPOA considering that and the resistance to full inspection?
Your points with respect to Israel and all abiding are well taken. I doubt many, if any, of us can appreciate living with enemies on all sides that have vowed to completely destroy us and the threat of the unknown might be their greatest deterrent to destruction.
It is obviously a complex issue and I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful reply. I believe most of our difference resides in how much trust we each put in the words and actions of Iran, specifically their leadership. My experience tells me when someone threatens to kill you, you cannot afford to ignore them. Ignoring a threat gave the world WWII.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
5mo
I mean...the last two times, "we" have attacked them in the middle of negotiations (the Pearl Harbor approach) but when was the last time you really heard a lot of the hardline rhetoric that happened 10-20-47 years ago? I haven't been hearing it for a while in the region.
I saw no evidence that they did not comply with the JCPOA. What they offered the Omanis last week was 24/7 inspections.
The world has changed since Israel fought in defensive wars. They are now the big bullies in the neighborhood starting wars and attacking neighbors in the past 10 years). They have acted with impunity with regards to respecting the borders of their neighbors and always have an excuse that it was some sort of "defensive" reaction on why they attacked someone unprovoked.
Part of being neutral is seeing shifts and the landscape shifted with the exception of US lobbyists and money who have continued to push the same old (and now incorrect) narratives. It's why the USA is losing respect globally in this age of information and why people are eager to disassociate with us on their own terms. I have seen that with regards to military technology and weapons production.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
just because someone becomes less vocal about sharing them and you appear to ignore their proxy funding and support. Is offering 24/7 inspections only to pull the rug out once they have bought themselves time really an offer? They offered inspections in the JCPOA only to subsequently pull back and try to rewrite the rules. You are much closer to the technology and weapons production and I cannot dispute your opinion. I guess we will get more clarity in the coming days, weeks and months, but, hopefully not years.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
A handful of centrifuges. Takes about a week to spin to 60%...
They were warned to not do that. They didn't listen.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
5mo
Under the JCPOA (2015–2018), Iran accepted the most intrusive inspection regime ever implemented anywhere in the world.
24/7 IAEA cameras and seals on centrifuge halls
Daily inspector access to Natanz and Fordow
Continuous monitoring of the entire uranium supply chain
Access to every declared enrichment site
Environmental sampling, which detects undeclared nuclear activity even if equipment is removed
And the IAEA repeatedly certified Iran’s compliance 15 times in a row.
(In response to this post by ColoVT82)
5mo
any more than I don't ignore our support for Israel both in terms of support and funding ($19B in the last 13 months). If you don't think the USA, Israel, China, Russia, etc. etc aren't supporting and funding proxies and doing things to destabilize countries, then you aren't paying attention to the world. But we can't accuse them of walking around with skid marks in their underwear while we have the same skid marks in ours. At some point, you have to figure out ...is it worth it to continue down the same path? With Iran, they started to make changes. I saw it and a lot of folks in the region saw it. Did we? Doesn't sound like it.
I do think that trade and normalization ...plus safety from continued interference by Israel is what they wanted. Everyone in the region is tired of war ...except Israel...and the USA.
(and for the record... Hamas/Hezbollah use digital currencies these days ..a lot. Those are all ran through Russia...not Iran.)
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
linking Hamas/Hezbollah to Russia improves their standing nor does it absolve Iran. I am paying attention, as best I can, and appreciate the discussion even though our views of Iran, their leadership not their citizens, seems to differ significantly.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
but if you think Iran is the only country of the world that uses proxies and destabilizes neighbors...you didn't just watch Syria fall with both direct (IDF airstrikes) and indirect (via the Druze) support from Israel to help facilitate that "revolution" away from Assad.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
to anywhere where I have claimed others do not use proxies or have not destabilized neighbors. However, the difference is Iran and their proxies have aimed their attacks at the U.S. and its allies and I do not believe they are entitled to a get out of jail free card for 40+ years of their malevolence. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe they have magically changed their focus to reasonable intentions. You might think me cynical and that is fine but, cynicism is likely to keep me alive longer than unwarranted trust.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
13-14 years ago, the Saudis were offering up 6 figure contracts to go to Saudi to train Syrian "moderates" to over throw the Syrian regime. 9 months working, 12 month contract. CIA was funding it via the Saudis and targeted specialized former US military members. I was one of those. After looking at the assignment and the profiles of the folks that we would be training, I said "thanks but no thanks". A few of my friends took the contract. After training them up using US weapons, tactics, vehicles and indirect fire techniques, we dropped them into Syria and told them to go West to fight the Assad regime. Instead, they went East because the Iraqi Army was easier and they not only defeated them but they gained more equipment and a foothold into Western Iraq/Eastern Syria. Those groups of "moderates" became ISIS. Years later, my friends deployed to fight against ISIS and to help guard the Conoco oil fields that ISIS had take over and were getting rich just sitting there with land, oil and territory.
So setting up proxies, destabilizing regions and supporting bad people is nothing unique to Iran.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
that were in leadership and power in recent times?
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
The core moderate/reformist bloc that delivered the JCPOA weren't “pro‑America.” They were pragmatists who believed Iran’s long‑term survival depended on economic integration, not isolation. These 3 figures were the ones pushing it the most.
1-Hassan Rouhani — The architect of the diplomatic opening.
Rouhani, president from 2013–2021, ran explicitly on a platform of ending sanctions through negotiation. He argued that Iran needed:
-foreign investment,
-access to global markets,
-and a predictable relationship with major powers.
He later emphasized that direct talks with foreign ministers were essential to reaching the JCPOA, noting that indirect talks would have dragged negotiations out for decades.
2-Mohammad Javad Zarif — The dealmaker and public face of diplomacy.
Zarif, Rouhani’s foreign minister, was the chief negotiator. He was Western‑educated, fluent in the language of international law, and believed Iran could gain security through agreements rather than confrontation.
His role was so central that when he briefly resigned in 2019, it exposed the deepening rift between moderates and hardliners after the U.S. withdrawal. Conservatives blamed him for failing to preserve the economic benefits of the JCPOA once sanctions returned.
3-Ali Akbar Salehi — The technical guarantor.
As head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Salehi ensured that Iran’s nuclear concessions were technically sound and reversible if the deal collapsed. He was trusted by both moderates and parts of the security establishment, which made him a bridge figure.
They weren’t just diplomats — they represented a strategic worldview that:
-Iran should be a normal state, not a revolutionary outlier.
-Economic growth requires diplomacy, not defiance.
-Nuclear capability is leverage, not destiny — something to trade for sanctions relief.
-Engagement with the West strengthens Iran’s middle class, which in turn stabilizes the country.
This worldview was powerful enough to win elections and deliver the JCPOA. However, when the U.S. exited the JCPOA in 2018, moderates lost all credibility inside Iran. Hardliners argued:
“We told you the U.S. can’t be trusted.”
“You gave up nuclear leverage for nothing.”
“Diplomacy is weakness; resistance is strength.”
So these guys were politically destroyed when the US broke the deal.
By the 2021 Iranian election, the moderate camp was politically gutted. Zarif was attacked by conservatives, and Rouhani’s legacy was blamed for economic hardship.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
but, lost favor due to JCPOA pullout by the US and none of consequence now in power or leadership. So the blame is on the US for pulling.out of the agreement? Do you believe the JCPOA was a good agreement or was it just a beneficial document for the Iranian conservatives to buy time until their arsenal was fully developed? Seems to me that none of these situations can be resolved untli NPT issues that you mentioned earlier are resolved.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
The moderates who negotiated the JCPOA did lose power, and the timing wasn’t a coincidence.
I mean, here is the timeline:
-The JCPOA was signed in 2015 by Rouhani, Zarif, and Salehi — the core moderate bloc.
-Iran complied through 2018, confirmed by 15 IAEA reports.
-The U.S. withdrew in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions.
-Iran’s economy collapsed again, and conservatives said, “We told you the U.S. can’t be trusted.”
That's not opinion....that is the actual timeline. Whether one blames the U.S. for that outcome is a matter of interpretation, but the causal chain is straightforward..... the moderates’ entire political argument depended on diplomacy delivering results. When the U.S. broke the deal, their argument died.
As far as buying time until their arsenal was fully developed, I don't see any evidence of the Iranians breaking the JCPOA.
Iran’s enrichment capped at 3.67%.
Stockpile capped at 300 kg.
24/7 IAEA monitoring.
Daily inspector access to Natanz and Fordow.
Zero evidence of diversion or weapons work during the deal period.
As far as the NPT, the entire Middle East nuclear order is built on contradictions
Israel: undeclared nuclear weapons, no inspections, outside the NPT.
Iran: NPT member, inspected, but denied the same enrichment rights Japan and Germany have.
Saudi Arabia: openly says it will match Iran’s capabilities.
U.S. policy: enforce zero enrichment for Iran but tolerate Israel’s arsenal.
As long as that asymmetry exists, every negotiation is built on sand.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
U.S. gov't. pulled out of the JCPOA and that was my purpose for asking you if you thought it was a good agreement? I would offer that the agreement had a variety of expiration dates on certain compliance issues and in some quarters was just viewed as kicking the inevitable can down the road. This situation in some ways is a chicken and egg debate. I think it will bear watching to see what all the other Arab countries do. You yourself already speculated October attacks were viewed by some as trying to stop the Israel/Saudi agreements from moving forward. Like I have said before, I think we agree on many areas and our differences are in the evaluation of Iranian intentions. Good discussion and back and forth IMO. Thanks.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
This is key, here. We wouldn't be in this mess if a certain administration had ignored this and decided to break the JCPOA.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
and early National Period leaders on foreign policy...avoid entangling alliances, avoid deep connections to another nation, and don't go abroad looking for monsters to slay.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
I need to borrow that for my analysis paper....lol
** Edited by AirborneHokie96 at 3/2/2026, 10:27:19 AM
(In response to this post by mancunian)
5mo
policy, see anti-BDS laws. Their lobbyists own our government.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
understanding of the Omanis and the situation than I do so I will defer to your expertise as to what may have happened. However, there are enough people at these talks to know what was offered and more importantly to evaluate the good faith of any offers and on that last count let's just say the Iranian's track record is suspect.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
more suspect... Not sure we have any credibility to be judging others' track record.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
put some meat on that bone before I can respond further. To be clear changes in course by different administrations are not the same as bad faith negotiations.
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
5mo
did that last year. The same administration pretended to want negotiations with Venezuela, but that was never going to work. It was all a charade. Same with the Iran negotians now. It was all pretend. We were always going to attack both of those countries.
Illegal offensive attacks against countries who are no imminent threat to us.
Also we claim to be negotiating with the Cuban government. And they claim we are not. I'm inclined to believe them since we are the ones who have been doing an illegal blockade on them for decades.
** Edited by NokieHokie at 3/2/2026, 9:34:12 AM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
more meat than that. Can you support your claims with actual facts? Iran and their proxies negotiate out of one side of their mouth while ordering strikes out of the other side. How is that any different than what you accuse the United States of?
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
5mo
record? Or the implication that the US does? I wouldn't trust any government anywhere in the world, by the way...
We had the JCPOA working perfectly, and Trump ripped it up. Biden didn't get back into it as he promised. All our leaders are crap. Iran was complying deal according to the IAEA. This is on us.
Also, Iran was doing very well until we did regime change in 1953. It's our interference that caused the current situation with their terrible leadership.
It's going all over the world and creating turmoil.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
I think your opinion of the JCPOA and compliance might differ from the reality of the situation.
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
5mo
Iran repeatedly pursued:
-the JCPOA (which it complied with),
-backchannel talks with the U.S.,
-trade agreements with Europe and Asia,
-and regional de‑escalation with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
This was a country trying to pivot toward normal state behavior, not a "rogue actor" seeking isolation.
(In response to this post by NokieHokie)
5mo
It seems like all the OCO sites I worked at were built to withstand/survive another Khobar Towers, not Shahed drones. I hope calmer heads prevail and all sides stand down.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
(In response to this post by SDHokie)
E
EDGEMAN
5mo
Every one will be a bomb magnet.
We'll see how many army regulars decide to walk over to the people's side. I don't think the people who have been murdering Iranian civilians will try to change side. They will be marked by death by the civilian population.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
(In response to this post by SDHokie)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
an understatement given the myriad of reports circulating. Also imperative to take care in evaluating and verifying stories prior to sharing. That is not aimed at you as I feel confident your sources are good and your decision to share well considered.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
while on the phone with a friend.
Heard that both sides know this isn't going to end well. The US cannot sustain this and the region is suffering quite a bit right now.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
the crux of that matter is how the varying sides define ending well. The cost and sacrifice of military conflict is rarely cheap and hopefully the potential costs have been accurately considered by all.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
be
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
5mo
(In response to this post by Hokebury)
5mo
That they had fixed up one of them been sent against them and sent it back the other way. The US couldn’t figure it out on their own? Or maybe the trick is I ran and figured out how to make them cheaply.
I was thinking about an aircraft carrier group, which has all sorts of layers of defense, long range, missile range, missiles, phalanx as a last resort. But watching a lot of the videos in Ukraine, where they figure out ways to sneak them by a Russian defenses you wonder if there’s a way to trick things whether Iran can sneak a missile through to head an aircraft carrier or not this would be a real life fire test.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
5mo
They're learning a lot from that conflict.
(In response to this post by `lag)
E
EDGEMAN
5mo
A hypersonic missile would have a much better chance of hitting a carrier, but not one of those drones. Well, one might make it if they launched a thousand all at once targeting it...
(In response to this post by `lag)
E
EDGEMAN
5mo
...reengineered/upgraded the design. We sent a few of them back to Iran.
(In response to this post by `lag)