Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

so uh, how are they doing that? they're just sending ships full of men and materiel to the island? and we're letting them?

why isn't there an F/A-18 overhead 24/7 ready to drop a 2000 pound bomb through the deck of any suspicious ship approaching the island? we have air dominance, right?

Replies

50

The island close enough to the coast that speed boats and subs could carry men and man portable materials. its close to the mountainous coast which can hide SAMS. so constant coverage isn't safe.

oh Kharg is right there? I thought it was in the strait. Well they still hold the base in Kuwait so turn around times for aircraft should be short and they can refill ships from there

I'm starting to think the end goal isn't a real victory but a plausibly realistic propaganda one. If you were going for effect, (and you were desperately blackmailed & retarded) then you could plan on seizing some port and bottle up the iranians at some mountainous choke point with air assets.

In the office, everyone can pretend you "only need a few thousand marines" and "you can keep their army contained with 24/7 air strikes". If it works then cool! You have a bartering chip for a fake treaty to retreat with the myth of american power intact.

If it doesn't work....well, a few thousand dead GIs would surely galvanize the public into WWII-level mobilization, no?

@DC5FAN @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf @BobsonDugnuttHB they don't need to meet us in the field. whatever forces we drop in iran won't be able to do anything about their missiles, while iran can hit those forces with shaheds launched from anywhere inside their borders

or iran can simply ignore them and tell us to pull them out or they'll completely destroy the gulf state oil infrastructure and close the strait permanently
@DC5FAN @BobsonDugnuttHB @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf what's to surmount? we literally cannot effectively attack them, we don't know where their missile bases are. we can't move the infrastructure they threaten. there's no military solution here, not right now

if we spent the next 20 years reindustrializing the US and expanding the US military to 5x its current strength then sure, we could go squash iran

sometimes the enemy is just too strong to defeat at a reasonable cost. we don't have to take every single fight
We could just air strike the oil island, and wait and see the decapitation strike changed things(I believe the replacement is a puppet in a coma and the who ever is collecting the million dollars is hoping to take power), but nooooo we must threaten to "capture" the island and let trade go thru in case democracy suddenly shows up and so europe can delay making neclear power planets... again.

Why are we supporting our enemies trade routes while trying for impossible goals? If we could just make the hard choice "should this oil production still exist", yes is an easy to achieve situation, no is an easy to achieve situation, "yes but it should be a democratic nation state" is literally impossible.
@deprecated_ii @BobsonDugnuttHB @DC5FAN @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf there's gotta be something else going on here, like the whole thing's a scheme to profit off manipulating the markets or something
it's just totally implausible to me that the US is incapable of carrying out airstrikes on Iran's infrastructure and industrial capacity until they're stuck standing on the shore trying to skip rocks at passing tankers
has the entire defense budget for the past 50 years been nothing but embezzlement while some guy gets paid 14 bucks an hour to duct tape traffic cones to the end of culvert pipes and paint them like missiles?
I think you are asking an irrelevant question. I agree that if you were to place a US army mech infantry battalion against its Iranian equivalent it would be better trained, equipped and lead but that doesn't really matter.
A lot retired military analysts are, I believe, correctly comparing any US landing in Iran to the Gallipoli campaign of WW1. By all accounts the British and Commonwealth were superior in all regards to the Turks but they could never take advantage of said superiority because the campaign to take the Dardanelles was logistically and strategically impossible.
The same can be said of any US incursion into Iran, barring some massive Gulf War style build up over months (which the military doesn't even have the numbers to pull off anymore). The specific quality of Iranian units is not very important because any landing is not capable of being reinforced or supplied in a meaningful way even if successful.
@skylar @BobsonDugnuttHB @DC5FAN @leespringfield1903 @wgiwf sure, we could destroy their infrastructure. but they can destroy the infrastructure of the entire gulf and israel in response. we can't stop them doing that. the missiles are already built, and the people who can fire them are already in bunkers we can't locate. the missiles cannot be shot down

we're in a standoff. we're pointing a big gun at them and they're holding a dead man switch that will blow up the world economy if we shoot them

our options are to back off for now, or say fuck it and destroy 30% of the world oil supply in an attack that won't even achieve what greater israel needs out of this war

they simply outplayed us

I don’t honestly have any real way of knowing details; but Persians are an ancient Nation with a proud history of conquest. They’ve been around literal millennia. That they’re *still* around, in a strategically well-defensible land with area comparable to Western Europe, strongly suggests to me they know how to run an Army in defense of their homeland. My two cents