War With Iran - Operation "Epic Fury" 2026

[dbair1967]

Trump handling this exactly as it should be (and exactly as Condy Rice suggested the past couple of days). Finsih off the regime forever.

 

[dbair1967]

 

[touchdown]

Hezbollah remained defiant. Leader Naim Qassem on Wednesday used his first appearance since the start of the conflict in Iran to pledge continued attacks on Israel.

“Hezbollah and its Islamic resistance are responding to Israeli-American aggression, and that is a legitimate right,” he said in a speech broadcast by his party's television channel. “Our choice is to confront it to the ultimate sacrifice, and we will not surrender.”

‘Self-destructive, suicidal’: In Lebanon, anger rises against Hezbollah amid Israeli strikes

The militant group Hezbollah has lost political backers in Lebanon after strikes it launched this week against Israel to honour Iran’s late supreme leader Ali Khamenei provoked a robust military response.…

www.france24.com

 

[touchdown]

 

[touchdown]

 

[yimyammer]

Trump handling this exactly as it should be (and exactly as Condy Rice suggested the past couple of days). Finsih off the regime forever.

The US hasn't been this decisive since WW2, that's exactly what was required of Germany and Japan

 

[yimyammer]

that was a good essay, hope he's right, here's the full text in case anyone doesn't want to click to X:
The Iran war is a complete paradigm shift in how first-world countries wage war. It's closer to the Gulf War than the Iraq War. We've seen previews of it in the Nagorno-Karabakh wars and the Gaza war, but the Iran war shows a next-generation military (America and Israel) wiping the floor with a last-generation military (Iran).

The big problem America has had since World War II is dealing with insurgencies. Insurgency did not exist as a tactic, by and large, prior to World War II because nations had no reason to care about human life in the countries they were fighting. The Romans responded to Vietcong- or Taliban-like uprisings by putting entire villages to the sword. When the Helvetii tried to invade what is now France, marshaling every fighting-age man they had, Julius Caesar called up a force that was four times the size of theirs, defeated them easily, razed their territory, and sold the women and children into slavery. During the imperial era, Britain, France, and the other colonial powers dealt with uppity colonials via mass extermination. At one point, the British invaded Tibet out of boredom and humiliated them after a couple of battles.

That tactic ceased to be viable in the era of mass media. Counterinsurgency warfare is literally about winning hearts and minds, meaning the most effective tactic---mass extermination of enemy civilians---is off the table since video of your soldiers bayoneting women and children will end up on the nightly news. We failed in Vietnam because we were unable to deal with the Vietcong without "destroying the village to save it." Same in Iraq. The only winning move in wars like this is not to play; this is why the Iraq "regime change" and "nation-building" initiatives were always doomed. Every My Lai massacre or Abu Ghraib sex abuse scandal is a weapon that undermines us.

Additionally, public opinion is intolerant of casualties. Fun fact: the number of American servicemen dying or being injured has steadily decreased with every war we've fought since World War II. Over 400,000 servicemen died in World War II. A little less than 60,000 died in Vietnam. Less than 4,500 died in Iraq and less than 2,500 died in Afghanistan. But you'd be an inhuman monster to try and rationalize that to the loved one of a dead or maimed soldier. It would certainly destroy you in an election.

What first-world nations needed was a way to microtarget enemy combatants and infrastructure with minimal damage to civilians, as well as minimize casualties on their own side. We did not have that 20 years ago. With AI, drones, and next-generation surveillance technology, the problem of insurgency has been solved without having to resort to Genghis Khan methods. We can now precision strike enemy leaders in their homes, in their places of work, and we can blow up their missile launchers and ammo caches with minimal risk to ourselves.

This is exactly what's going on now. The Air Force, Navy, and IDF have been focusing fire on Iranian leaders and military targets. They've been explicitly avoiding attacking civilians (the school that was destroyed was from a misfiring Iranian missile, not the IDF). And we've explicitly avoiding putting servicemen in harm's way by focusing on long-distance air and sea power and strategically evacuating bases that Iran attacks so they don't have a pile of dead Americans they can use for propaganda purposes. We're almost a week into the war and only six Americans have died. 50 servicemen died in the first week of the Iraq invasion. Everything is set up to not only knock out the Iranian leadership, but get the Iranian citizenry and dissidents in the military on side.

Some of this is due not to technology but smarter leadership. The idea that you need "boots on the ground" is a retarded neocon notion that flies in the face of reality. The Mongols---the most successful land warriors in history---used horse-mounted archers to destroy enemy armies from a distance. The idea that you need to march into the enemy's territory, where they have all the advantage, to fight them one-on-one is stupid. We have a superior Navy and Air Force. Trump is using them.

The other key factors are intelligence and diplomacy. In the latter, Trump's approach is more like George H.W. Bush's than Dubya's. The Trump administration spent years improving relations with Arab states as well as other regional players like Armenia and Azerbaijan precisely to get them on side for something like this. As for intelligence, Dubya's crew of tards knew almost nothing about the situation in Iraq before invading. We know everything about Iran, from where their key military facilities are to the bathrooms where the mullahs jerk off. They can't run and they can't hide.

Amusingly, Israel is probably the ideal partner for this kind of warfare because they specialize in it. The IDF is famously averse to casualties because of Israel's limited manpower reserves. They literally design tanks to minimize harm to the occupants. They have impressive intelligence (I used to diss Mossad and I think they're still overrated in many respects, but man did they put the Iranians over a barrel). You don't have to like Israel to acknowledge any of this.

The Iranians may have spent years preparing for an American attack, but they spent those years preparing to fight the last generation's war. They're like France in 1939, wasting their resources on the Maginot Line while the Wehrmacht just sent tanks to circle around it and bombers to fly over it. This is why the pro-Iran contingent on here is now whining that they're being censored. They know they're losing and have to resort to literal fake news, AI videos, and years-old photos in a propaganda war to convince Americans that we're losing. Sorry Suleiman, it's not the responsibility of an American social media platform to help America's enemies! Go home!

I do believe that the Iran war could go sideways. But every indication so far is that it won't. Trump is the guy who got elected in part because he said the Iraq War was "a big fat mistake." He and his cabinet are cognizant of why that war failed and how to fight a war properly, using America's strengths. The brownoids, ziggers, and third worldists can cope and seethe, but America is back, baby.

 

[Doomsday]

that was a good essay, hope he's right, here's the full text in case anyone doesn't want to click to X:
The Iran war is a complete paradigm shift in how first-world countries wage war. It's closer to the Gulf War than the Iraq War. We've seen previews of it in the Nagorno-Karabakh wars and the Gaza war, but the Iran war shows a next-generation military (America and Israel) wiping the floor with a last-generation military (Iran).

The big problem America has had since World War II is dealing with insurgencies. Insurgency did not exist as a tactic, by and large, prior to World War II because nations had no reason to care about human life in the countries they were fighting. The Romans responded to Vietcong- or Taliban-like uprisings by putting entire villages to the sword. When the Helvetii tried to invade what is now France, marshaling every fighting-age man they had, Julius Caesar called up a force that was four times the size of theirs, defeated them easily, razed their territory, and sold the women and children into slavery. During the imperial era, Britain, France, and the other colonial powers dealt with uppity colonials via mass extermination. At one point, the British invaded Tibet out of boredom and humiliated them after a couple of battles.

That tactic ceased to be viable in the era of mass media. Counterinsurgency warfare is literally about winning hearts and minds, meaning the most effective tactic---mass extermination of enemy civilians---is off the table since video of your soldiers bayoneting women and children will end up on the nightly news. We failed in Vietnam because we were unable to deal with the Vietcong without "destroying the village to save it." Same in Iraq. The only winning move in wars like this is not to play; this is why the Iraq "regime change" and "nation-building" initiatives were always doomed. Every My Lai massacre or Abu Ghraib sex abuse scandal is a weapon that undermines us.

Additionally, public opinion is intolerant of casualties. Fun fact: the number of American servicemen dying or being injured has steadily decreased with every war we've fought since World War II. Over 400,000 servicemen died in World War II. A little less than 60,000 died in Vietnam. Less than 4,500 died in Iraq and less than 2,500 died in Afghanistan. But you'd be an inhuman monster to try and rationalize that to the loved one of a dead or maimed soldier. It would certainly destroy you in an election.

What first-world nations needed was a way to microtarget enemy combatants and infrastructure with minimal damage to civilians, as well as minimize casualties on their own side. We did not have that 20 years ago. With AI, drones, and next-generation surveillance technology, the problem of insurgency has been solved without having to resort to Genghis Khan methods. We can now precision strike enemy leaders in their homes, in their places of work, and we can blow up their missile launchers and ammo caches with minimal risk to ourselves.

This is exactly what's going on now. The Air Force, Navy, and IDF have been focusing fire on Iranian leaders and military targets. They've been explicitly avoiding attacking civilians (the school that was destroyed was from a misfiring Iranian missile, not the IDF). And we've explicitly avoiding putting servicemen in harm's way by focusing on long-distance air and sea power and strategically evacuating bases that Iran attacks so they don't have a pile of dead Americans they can use for propaganda purposes. We're almost a week into the war and only six Americans have died. 50 servicemen died in the first week of the Iraq invasion. Everything is set up to not only knock out the Iranian leadership, but get the Iranian citizenry and dissidents in the military on side.

Some of this is due not to technology but smarter leadership. The idea that you need "boots on the ground" is a retarded neocon notion that flies in the face of reality. The Mongols---the most successful land warriors in history---used horse-mounted archers to destroy enemy armies from a distance. The idea that you need to march into the enemy's territory, where they have all the advantage, to fight them one-on-one is stupid. We have a superior Navy and Air Force. Trump is using them.

The other key factors are intelligence and diplomacy. In the latter, Trump's approach is more like George H.W. Bush's than Dubya's. The Trump administration spent years improving relations with Arab states as well as other regional players like Armenia and Azerbaijan precisely to get them on side for something like this. As for intelligence, Dubya's crew of tards knew almost nothing about the situation in Iraq before invading. We know everything about Iran, from where their key military facilities are to the bathrooms where the mullahs jerk off. They can't run and they can't hide.

Amusingly, Israel is probably the ideal partner for this kind of warfare because they specialize in it. The IDF is famously averse to casualties because of Israel's limited manpower reserves. They literally design tanks to minimize harm to the occupants. They have impressive intelligence (I used to diss Mossad and I think they're still overrated in many respects, but man did they put the Iranians over a barrel). You don't have to like Israel to acknowledge any of this.

The Iranians may have spent years preparing for an American attack, but they spent those years preparing to fight the last generation's war. They're like France in 1939, wasting their resources on the Maginot Line while the Wehrmacht just sent tanks to circle around it and bombers to fly over it. This is why the pro-Iran contingent on here is now whining that they're being censored. They know they're losing and have to resort to literal fake news, AI videos, and years-old photos in a propaganda war to convince Americans that we're losing. Sorry Suleiman, it's not the responsibility of an American social media platform to help America's enemies! Go home!

I do believe that the Iran war could go sideways. But every indication so far is that it won't. Trump is the guy who got elected in part because he said the Iraq War was "a big fat mistake." He and his cabinet are cognizant of why that war failed and how to fight a war properly, using America's strengths. The brownoids, ziggers, and third worldists can cope and seethe, but America is back, baby.

I can summarize this succinctly: kill all of the Shia Muslims in Iran.