BearGoggles said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Do y'all know the story called the Doolittle Raid, where US forces attacked mainland Japan 4 months after Pearl Harbor ?
It was a surprise which Japan didn't think possible.

Don't be surprised when Iran lashes back in unique or unknown ways.

---

Aside from hitting our bases in the region Iran has no choice but to respond with asymmetrical warfare. But it isn't like we created this problem with the attack - they were doing that already. See the news stories about sleeper cells, FBI arrests and one Iranian guy trying to hire someone to assassinate Trump. Also consider their nuclear program - apparently specialized needs for things like medical equipment require 20% uranium. Iran is the only non-nuke country enriching to weapons grade (60%-90%); they have hundreds of centrifuges buried hundred of feet underground below a mountain. We all know what was going on. Plain and simple, Iran is a bad actor.

---

Iran has been engaged in these asymmetrical and/or proxy tactics for 40+ years, using proxies to attack Americans and American interests. Thousands of Americans have been killed. That is precisely why they cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For too long, US leaders - of both parties - have ignored Iran's stated intentions and actions advancing those intentions. Hopefully that time is over.

For all the statements issued by various countries, the vast majority of nations (particularly countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia) are greatly relieved that the US and Israel are acting to derail the Iran nuclear program. Iran has destabilized the region and hopefully that ends as well.

---

NBC NEWS: Iran sent a communiqué to President Trump before the attack, warning him that they would activate "sleeper-cell terror inside the United States if it were attacked."

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) June 23, 2025

bearister said:

---

Anyone that really knows this issue please point out where AI has this wrong or incomplete. Thanks.

AI Overview:

"While Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz on several occasions and has the capabilities to disrupt maritime traffic in the strait, it is unlikely to be able to effectively close it for a prolonged period.
Here's why:
Strong International Response: Any attempt by Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz would likely trigger a swift and strong military response from the United States and other international naval forces present in the region. The US Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and tasked with keeping the strait open.

Self-Inflicted Economic Harm: Closing the strait would severely impact Iran's own economy by halting its oil exports, a crucial source of revenue. This action would be considered economically suicidal.

Alienation of Key Partners: Such a move would also antagonize countries like China, Iran's biggest oil buyer, which would suffer significant economic consequences from a strait closure.

Iran's Past Behavior: Although Iran has targeted commercial vessels and US Navy ships in the past during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, these actions didn't completely block the strait. Since then, Iran has not attempted to fully blockade the strait.

Possible methods Iran could use to disrupt the strait (although likely not fully close it):
Deploying naval mines.
Launching anti-ship missiles from coastal batteries.
Harassing ships with patrol boats or helicopters.
Using drones or submarines.

Potential consequences of disruption:
Spike in oil prices: Even a partial closure or harassment in the strait could cause oil prices to spike, as around 20% of global oil trade passes through this waterway.

Economic disruption: This price surge could negatively impact global and potentially the US economy.

Military escalation: Any interference with navigation in the strait risks a significant military response from the US and its allies.

In conclusion: While Iran can pose a threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and potentially disrupt traffic for a limited time, a full and effective closure for an extended period is highly improbable given the potential international backlash and severe economic consequences for Iran itself."

*I realize this AI analysis was generated before the American attack. Iran may now be in kamikaze mode and feel the guardrails are gone.

---

The Iranians are not quite yet in "kamikaze" mode, they are not yet even attacking American targets, just responding by continuing to bomb Israel. Israel has been doing its best to get the US and Iran into a full blown hot war, so the Iranians are somewhat reticent to oblige them. Contrary to their image, the Iranians are very deliberate and calculating in their moves, chess is a Persian game after all.

Iran can definitely block maritime traffic simply because tankers would become uninsurable if Iran is hitting ships randomly. Same reason why Maersk stopped going to Haifa in Israel. They also don't depend on the Hormuz as much for their exports as they have ports on the other side in the Arabian Sea. These ports could be blockaded or bombed, but the Iranians can retaliate against any navy stationed in the Gulf or Arabian Sea.

bear2034 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

A non-stop 18-hour flight from Missouri on Friday.

The "reported" flights of B-2's to Guam were an intentional effort to misdirect attention.
They were decoys flying toward Guam in the Western Pacific.

---

The B-2's to Guam were a misdirection play and also a warning for the CCP and North Korea.

---

The Chinese have systems that can detect, track and target stealth planes. They can also hit Guam or even Diego Garcia with long range ballistic missiles with CEP accuracy of 5 meters.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3300848/why-plas-wz-9-drone-serious-challenge-us-aircraft-south-china-sea

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

bearister said:

---

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

---

99% of the bots on X don't recognize this. To them, the bunker bombs were the original sin.

bear2034 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

---

99% of the bots on X don't recognize this. To them, the bunker bombs were the original sin.

---

Operation Ajax, Kermit Roosevelt, Rumsfled supplying Saddam with nerve gas to feed a war in which half a million Iranians died, the Savak,... Those are some of the clues if you want to look for the original sin in the relations between the US and Iran.

Cal88 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

---

99% of the bots on X don't recognize this. To them, the bunker bombs were the original sin.

---

Operation Ajax, Kermit Roosevelt, Rumsfled supplying Saddam with nerve gas to feed a war in which half a million Iranians died, the Savak,... Those are some of the clues if you want to look for the original sin in the relations between the US and Iran.

---

It started before Bush and Rumsfeld. As bad as that was, the CIA didn't supply Saddam nerve gas but they did provide chemicals such as those used for agricultural pesticides that could be used for nerve gas production.

sycasey said:

---

I see the arguments that Iran's government sucks and is a bad actor in the region. Well yes, of course they are. Here's the problem: the same was true of Saddam Hussein. It doesn't mean that the decision to take him out was a good one. You have to think about how much it will cost and what you are willing to do after it's over. The track record of us trying to do this in the Middle East is very poor.

And yes, for Iraq we were also told that Hussein was very close to having Weapons of Mass Destruction. Heard that one before too.

---

The CONFLATION by the Trumpers is no big surprise.

SF City Bear's narrative is not all that surprising to me, even with Trump claiming himself to be the "Pro Peace" candidate and all about "America First" and not getting involved in anyone else's wars. We all know that this is what he ran on and this is what his voters voted for as opposed to the typical neocons.

You have people talking about how Iran has long called the U.S. satan and this is the rationale that they use . . . and "that" somehow legitimizes one of the biggest aerial invasions of another country by the United States in over 20 years . . . including more than two-dozen tomahawk missiles, and 75 aircraft delivering 420,000 lbs. of explosives, including 7 rarely used B-2 bombers carrying a never before used GBU-57 MOP.

If that isn't a stretch in logic, I don't know what is.
But you know . . . Trumpers.

sycasey said:

---

And yes, for Iraq we were also told that Hussein was very close to having Weapons of Mass Destruction. Heard that one before too.

---

Iran was actually hoarding toilet paper hundreds of meters below a mountain.

Yes, and generally speaking, US policy was to arm and support the loser in that war of attrition in order to keep it going and inflict maximum damage on both sides. When Iran was being overrun early in the war, the US provided spare parts and missiles for Iranian Tomcats and Phantoms, then when the Iranians recovered, covert support was provided for Iraq including chemical weapons.

"On Saturday afternoon, while still at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump was told the bombers were about to reach the point of no return the moment they would go into full radio silence.

The bottom line: Trump still wants a deal with Iran and wanted one before the bombers took off, an adviser to the president told Axios.

"Once the B-2s were radio silent, it was too late," the source said.*
Axios

*Inability to call off bomber as depicted in Dr. Strangelove:

bearister said:

---

"On Saturday afternoon, while still at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump was told the bombers were about to reach the point of no return the moment they would go into full radio silence.

The bottom line: Trump still wants a deal with Iran and wanted one before the bombers took off, an adviser to the president told Axios.

"Once the B-2s were radio silent, it was too late," the source said.*
Axios

*Inability to call off bomber as depicted in Dr. Strangelove:

---

After the round, President Trump took his playing partners to the War Room to see the Big Board and they had a few libations to preserve their precious bodily fluids.

NEW: A senior Iranian official told CNN the war could last two years, and Iran is prepared for that possibility.

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) June 23, 2025

We've clearly cross a "threshold" with this action.

The enemy always has a "vote".

I suspect that the military operation that Trump approved (and Congress was given no notification of) will have dramatic repercussions in the future.

DiabloWags said:

---

We've clearly cross a "threshold" with this action.

The enemy always has a "vote".

I suspect that the military operation that Trump approved (and Congress was given no notification of) will have dramatic repercussions in the future.

---

The less Iran does now the more likely they are to announce in 6 months that they have a nuclear weapon.

oski003 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

bearister said:

---

bearister said:

---

Here we go

---

Here we go II:



American B-2 stealth bombers with terrifying capabilities 'are on the move' as Iran tensions heat up | Daily Mail Online


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14834511/american-b-2-bombers-iran-tensions.html

---

What happened to no more forever wars? If Col. Bone Spur thinks he can bomb his way to negotiations, he is bleeping delusional. Now Iran will race to get a nuclear weapon. Does anyone believe that Hegseth is a wartime Secretary of Defense?

---

Wait, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is now entering a forever war? Newsbreak ... Iran was already racing to get a nuclear weapon. They were violating their no nuke agreements, they just ignored a deadline, and they were bombed. This wasn't an Obama thin red line that ultimately leads to an actual forever war (see Ukraine). This was an actual thin red line.c

---

Trump tore up the JCPOA so he could renegotiate a new nuclear deal with his name on it. He has been saber rattling since the first week of his first administration in 2016 and that was 9 Almost 10 years ago. We've also been dealing with Iran over the question of nuclear weapons since I can remember some 30 to 40 years. so yes, this has been a forever war against Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations. If we are really about getting bad actors to stop nuclear proliferation, the violation of a nuclear
an agreement, and threatening countries with nuclear weapons, then we should start with Russia who has consistently threatened Ukraine and the EU which contains some of our closet allies throughout history. Now Iran who is but a month away from developing a bomb will do everything they can to secure a nuclear weapon to keep from getting bombed. Bombing is not going to prevent them from obtaining a bomb but it will put targets on US servicemen in the area and personnel in embassies around the world.

---

Okay, I see. You think we were already in a forever war. Does this mean you wanted to continue the forever war status quo? Or just keep the status quo plus Iran having nuclear weapons, which you say they were a month away

---

---

---

Iran has begun a very "measured" operation against our U.S. base in Qatar.

Looks to have been "telegraphed" given statements from BOTH SIDES.

10 missiles fired.
All intercepted. No injuries or deaths.

Looks to be largely SYMBOLIC.
And de-escalatory.

An underwhelming retaliatory "response"
Is there now an offramp towards diplomacy?

Explosions boom in Qatar amid Iranian threats to retaliate for US strike on nuclear sites

DiabloWags said:

---

Iran has begun a very "measured" operation against our U.S. base in Qatar.

Looks to have been "telegraphed" given statements from BOTH SIDES.

10 missiles fired.
All intercepted. No injuries or deaths.

Looks to be largely SYMBOLIC.
And de-escalatory.

An underwhelming retaliatory "response"
Is there now an offramp towards diplomacy?

Explosions boom in Qatar amid Iranian threats to retaliate for US strike on nuclear sites

---

U.S. JETS SCRAMBLING OVER SAUDI ARABIA

— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) June 23, 2025

Cool cool cool.

DiabloWags said:

---

Iran has begun a very "measured" operation against our U.S. base in Qatar.

Looks to have been "telegraphed" given statements from BOTH SIDES.

10 missiles fired.
All intercepted. No injuries or deaths.

Looks to be largely SYMBOLIC.
And de-escalatory.

An underwhelming retaliatory "response"
Is there now an offramp towards diplomacy?

Explosions boom in Qatar amid Iranian threats to retaliate for US strike on nuclear sites

---

It appears to be this way doesn't it?

Iran is clearly trying to save face. If, God forbid, any U.S. servicemen are injured, the barrage will have been an escalation. But if all Iran musters are some impotent missiles—fired at a friendly nation, no less—this episode might well be over.

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) June 23, 2025

Statement from President Trump pic.twitter.com/F3zaXBls1s

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 23, 2025

I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

President Trump confirms no Americans and no Qataris were killed or wounded in Iran’s missile attack today pic.twitter.com/6Su2YJRMHr

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 23, 2025

^Let's see if it stands.

“Three bombings to neutralize Iran" might be the 2025 version of "two weeks to slow the spread."

ICYMI: I joined @mkraju on @InsidePolitics this morning. pic.twitter.com/tOGdb2Kwbu

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 22, 2025