Gulf War No.37: Iranistan

[Psamathe]

Now that Iran has been subject to the full brunt of US / Israeli aggression they have less incentive to back down and may just choose to keep hitting their enemies even if they try to call time. This is a war driven by religious extremism and hatred on both sides, while it seems those in charge want a holy war so why not just drop the facade of civility and get on with it..?

I would also suspect that were some new regime to somehow take power they would not be issuing an amnesty for all those clerics, IRG, police, etc. who had been carrying out all the reported atrocities. Even if there were such an amnesty, retribution for those suffering under them would undoubtedly start happening. So I suspect current regime losing power would not just be loss of their power and authority but also loss of their lives - so their current choice of step aside and die in disgrace or fight, if necessary to the death and die a martyr.

 

[briantrumpet]

Is that really what he is saying? Or, is he saying that our military are useless?
I'd have some sympathy for the later as the military have been underfunded for decades, and will continue to do so without 5%+ on taxes.

He's using the latter as an excuse for his shameless U-turn. It's not as if he wouldn't have been aware of the degradation of the UK military since whenever (actually goes back to the 'Strategic Defence Review' of dunno when, probably sometime after Gorbachev and the 'peace dividend'), so he was either totally ignorant or totally opportunistic. I wonder which?

Haha, I found the letter I had published in the Independent in 1997:

"Sir: Having read Polly Toynbee's comments on the Strategic Defence Review Seminar and the response of its chairman, I would like to offer a suggestion. Clearly the review has been prompted by the amount of money that the armed forces consume. The solution is so obvious, I cannot understand why it has not been proposed before.

The answer is competitive tendering. In a world of increasingly fast communications and multi-national businesses, all that aggressors or defenders need do is to define the terms of the contract, and then invite applications from those who would like to undertake the task. The contract would be awarded to the group who tendered the lowest price.

There would have to be safeguards. Without the idea of "nation", motivation would have to be supplied by a system of incentives (perhaps an extra payment for winning a war, and so on). One would also have to ensure against a monopoly situation: clearly there would be a need for at least two competitors (and preferably many more) in a World Conflict Market.

Of course there will be the predictable reactions to such a suggestion, but we experienced similar responses, from those with vested interests, to Margaret Thatcher's reforms of the Eighties. In today's society, where Tony Blair seems to be building on the foundations of his illustrious predecessor, I am confident that my above idea will be taken seriously."

 

[Psamathe]

Iran have already rejected the suggestion of a ceasefire.

My understanding is a ceasefire means negotiating terms (eg even "unconditional" needs when, where, how, etc.) and Iran had recent experience of what happens when you start talking to the US.

 

[wafter]

Iran have already rejected the suggestion of a ceasefire.

You can't throw an unwarranted punch then say ceasefire.

There we go then - sounds like they're in it for the long game, meaning the Israel definitely are and the US too.

Seems like this would play to Iran's strength given the apparent discrepencies in weapons stockpiles on each side..

Given what a shitshow the US' "intervention" has been in the middle east in past decades under far less unfavourable terms, the mind boggles as to how this latest "venture" is going to pan out for the US.

 

[briantrumpet]

There we go then - sounds like they're in it for the long game, meaning the Israel definitely are and the US too.

Seems like this would play to Iran's strength given the apparent discrepencies in weapons stockpiles on each side..

Given what a shitshow the US' "intervention" has been in the middle east in past decades under far less unfavourable terms, the mind boggles as to how this latest "venture" is going to pan out for the US.

If failure here combines with both economic and health disasters in the US itself (the latter which would run on for decades, if anti-vax & anti-science becomes entrenched), then the US is going to end up as the runner-up to China in world terms, as they unshackle themsleves from the carbon economy and favour economic expansionism over isolationism, religious fanaticism, and nostalgia.

 

[All uphill]

When will the silicone billionaires start jumping up and down?
This, from a chemical expert:

View attachment 13779

Makes a strong case to expand renewable

I would also suspect that were some new regime to somehow take power they would not be issuing an amnesty for all those clerics, IRG, police, etc. who had been carrying out all the reported atrocities. Even if there were such an amnesty, retribution for those suffering under them would undoubtedly start happening. So I suspect current regime losing power would not just be loss of their power and authority but also loss of their lives - so their current choice of step aside and die in disgrace or fight, if necessary to the death and die a martyr.

There was plenty of retribution during the 1979 revolution. I'd imagine it would be ten times worse now.

My guess is that the current regime is cemented in place for another 50 years now, thanks to Donny.

 

[Ian H]

Reuters report.
Now, with little left to lose, Iran is executing that plan and turning the conflict into a grinding war of attrition aimed at exhausting its adversaries politically and economically
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...ergy-disruption-outlast-us-israel-2026-03-10/

 

[briantrumpet]

Reuters report.
Now, with little left to lose, Iran is executing that plan and turning the conflict into a grinding war of attrition aimed at exhausting its adversaries politically and economically
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...ergy-disruption-outlast-us-israel-2026-03-10/

Afghanistan should have been the clue.

 

[Pblakeney]

There we go then - sounds like they're in it for the long game, meaning the Israel definitely are and the US too.

Seems like this would play to Iran's strength given the apparent discrepencies in weapons stockpiles on each side..

Given what a shitshow the US' "intervention" has been in the middle east in past decades under far less unfavourable terms, the mind boggles as to how this latest "venture" is going to pan out for the US.

The (understandable) lack of trust in the US when it comes to negotiation is precisely why Iran dismissed a ceasefire out of hand.

 

[laurentian]

The (understandable) lack of trust in the US when it comes to negotiation is precisely why Iran dismissed a ceasefire out of hand.

Not a reliable ally, not even a reliable enemy . . .

 

[CXRAndy]

Mojtaba Khamenei. No show

Presumed running with the 🐐 🐐 🐐 🐐 🐐

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2031321055977943292

 

[Pross]

Guess he's seen the polling. I wonder when Badenoch will take her eyes off X long enough to realise.

View attachment 13815

Taking his rejection by Trump badly then?

 

[Pblakeney]

He's using the latter as an excuse for his shameless U-turn. It's not as if he wouldn't have been aware of the degradation of the UK military since whenever (actually goes back to the 'Strategic Defence Review' of dunno when, probably sometime after Gorbachev and the 'peace dividend'), so he was either totally ignorant or totally opportunistic. I wonder which?

Haha, I found the letter I had published in the Independent in 1997:

"Sir: Having read Polly Toynbee's comments on the Strategic Defence Review Seminar and the response of its chairman, I would like to offer a suggestion. Clearly the review has been prompted by the amount of money that the armed forces consume. The solution is so obvious, I cannot understand why it has not been proposed before.

The answer is competitive tendering. In a world of increasingly fast communications and multi-national businesses, all that aggressors or defenders need do is to define the terms of the contract, and then invite applications from those who would like to undertake the task. The contract would be awarded to the group who tendered the lowest price.

There would have to be safeguards. Without the idea of "nation", motivation would have to be supplied by a system of incentives (perhaps an extra payment for winning a war, and so on). One would also have to ensure against a monopoly situation: clearly there would be a need for at least two competitors (and preferably many more) in a World Conflict Market.

Of course there will be the predictable reactions to such a suggestion, but we experienced similar responses, from those with vested interests, to Margaret Thatcher's reforms of the Eighties. In today's society, where Tony Blair seems to be building on the foundations of his illustrious predecessor, I am confident that my above idea will be taken seriously."

Fagash being opportunistic? Never! 😉

 

[TailWindHome]

Tweeter

Deleter