Iran

#15,932
#15,932
Iran’s ‘oil lifeline’ has been left untouched in the conflict. What happens if it’s seized?

If we blow up the Iranian's oil infrastructure there, we cut off its oil revenue, but reduce world supply 3%+. And what effect would that have on the blockage of Hormuz? Seems like Iran would have its back against the wall, which probably isn't a good thing.

Or, if we want to a take the island, we're talking maybe 5K boots on the ground with casualties. And how long do they stay there? Would Iran capitulate due to this?

What now 4K Chess Donnie?

www.cnbc.com

Iran’s 'oil lifeline’ has been left untouched in the conflict. What happens if it's seized?

Analysts say any attempt to attack or seize Iran’s strategic oil hub is likely to be fraught with risk.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
Last edited:
#15,933
#15,933
This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol and Carl Pickens
#15,936
#15,936
Vol8188 said:
This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.
Click to expand...
Reality:

Wars are decided by **whether political objectives are achieved**, not just battlefield statistics.

Wars are fought to achieve a political end. What are our goals in Iran, tell me?

Claims like yours that often focus on **visible damage or short-term battlefield metrics**, can be misleading when judging who is actually “winning” a war. A useful historical comparison is the experience of the Vietnam War, especially from the perspective of the United States versus North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

Below are parallels showing why those indicators didn’t reliably predict the outcome there.

---

## 1. **Economic devastation didn’t equal defeat**

During the Vietnam War, North Vietnam’s economy and infrastructure were hit extremely hard by U.S. bombing campaigns like Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker II.

**Reality:**

* Major industrial sites, railways, and bridges were repeatedly destroyed.
* The country faced severe shortages and relied heavily on aid from China and the Soviet Union.

**Outcome:**
Despite enormous economic damage, North Vietnam **continued fighting for years and ultimately achieved its strategic objective** with the Fall of Saigon in 1975.

**Lesson:**
Economic collapse or devastation **does not automatically translate into political or military surrender**, especially if the side being attacked is willing to endure hardship.

---

## 2. **Technological or air superiority didn’t determine the outcome**

The U.S. had overwhelming air power compared to North Vietnam.

* The U.S. deployed advanced aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II and B-52 Stratofortress.
* North Vietnam’s air force was tiny and largely defensive.

Yet the U.S. still struggled to control the war’s outcome.

**Lesson:**
Losing air power or having inferior equipment **does not automatically mean losing the war**, particularly in conflicts driven by insurgency or long-term attrition.

---

## 3. **High interception or kill ratios didn’t translate into victory**

Throughout the war, the U.S. reported extremely favorable combat statistics:

* Body counts heavily favored U.S. and South Vietnamese forces.
* Many operations claimed large enemy losses.

However, events like the Tet Offensive in 1968 showed that the enemy **still had the ability to launch large coordinated operations**, even after heavy reported losses.

**Lesson:**
Metrics like **interception rates, destroyed weapons, or kill ratios** can be misleading because they don’t measure:

* political will
* recruitment capacity
* strategic objectives

---

## 4. **Leadership losses didn’t end the war**

Insurgent or revolutionary movements often continue despite leadership losses.

In Vietnam:

* Command structures were repeatedly targeted.
* Yet the movement was decentralized and resilient.

Even after major setbacks, North Vietnam continued coordinating large-scale campaigns leading to the final offensive in 1975.

**Lesson:**
The loss or incapacitation of individual leaders **rarely ends conflicts driven by broader political or national movements**.

---

## 5. **Strategic goals matter more than battlefield damage**

The U.S. military dominated most conventional measures of war:

* superior technology
* higher kill ratios
* massive bombing campaigns

Yet the **strategic goals were asymmetric**:

* The U.S. goal: prevent communist takeover of South Vietnam.
* North Vietnam’s goal: unify Vietnam under its government.

North Vietnam only needed to **outlast U.S. political will**, which eventually happened after the Paris Peace Accords.

**Lesson:**
Wars are decided by **whether political objectives are achieved**, not just battlefield statistics.

---

✅ **Key takeaway:**
Indicators like infrastructure destruction, leadership casualties, air force losses, or intercepted missiles are **tactical indicators**, not strategic ones.

The Vietnam War demonstrates that a country can appear **devastated militarily and economically yet still win** if:

* it maintains political cohesion,
* sustains recruitment and logistics,
* and outlasts the opponent’s political will.
.
 
#15,939
#15,939
MontyPython said:
Reality:

Wars are decided by **whether political objectives are achieved**, not just battlefield statistics.

Wars are fought to achieve a political end. What are our goals in Iran, tell me?

Claims like yours that often focus on **visible damage or short-term battlefield metrics**, can be misleading when judging who is actually “winning” a war. A useful historical comparison is the experience of the Vietnam War, especially from the perspective of the United States versus North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

Below are parallels showing why those indicators didn’t reliably predict the outcome there.

---

## 1. **Economic devastation didn’t equal defeat**

During the Vietnam War, North Vietnam’s economy and infrastructure were hit extremely hard by U.S. bombing campaigns like Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker II.

**Reality:**

* Major industrial sites, railways, and bridges were repeatedly destroyed.
* The country faced severe shortages and relied heavily on aid from China and the Soviet Union.

**Outcome:**
Despite enormous economic damage, North Vietnam **continued fighting for years and ultimately achieved its strategic objective** with the Fall of Saigon in 1975.

**Lesson:**
Economic collapse or devastation **does not automatically translate into political or military surrender**, especially if the side being attacked is willing to endure hardship.

---

## 2. **Technological or air superiority didn’t determine the outcome**

The U.S. had overwhelming air power compared to North Vietnam.

* The U.S. deployed advanced aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II and B-52 Stratofortress.
* North Vietnam’s air force was tiny and largely defensive.

Yet the U.S. still struggled to control the war’s outcome.

**Lesson:**
Losing air power or having inferior equipment **does not automatically mean losing the war**, particularly in conflicts driven by insurgency or long-term attrition.

---

## 3. **High interception or kill ratios didn’t translate into victory**

Throughout the war, the U.S. reported extremely favorable combat statistics:

* Body counts heavily favored U.S. and South Vietnamese forces.
* Many operations claimed large enemy losses.

However, events like the Tet Offensive in 1968 showed that the enemy **still had the ability to launch large coordinated operations**, even after heavy reported losses.

**Lesson:**
Metrics like **interception rates, destroyed weapons, or kill ratios** can be misleading because they don’t measure:

* political will
* recruitment capacity
* strategic objectives

---

## 4. **Leadership losses didn’t end the war**

Insurgent or revolutionary movements often continue despite leadership losses.

In Vietnam:

* Command structures were repeatedly targeted.
* Yet the movement was decentralized and resilient.

Even after major setbacks, North Vietnam continued coordinating large-scale campaigns leading to the final offensive in 1975.

**Lesson:**
The loss or incapacitation of individual leaders **rarely ends conflicts driven by broader political or national movements**.

---

## 5. **Strategic goals matter more than battlefield damage**

The U.S. military dominated most conventional measures of war:

* superior technology
* higher kill ratios
* massive bombing campaigns

Yet the **strategic goals were asymmetric**:

* The U.S. goal: prevent communist takeover of South Vietnam.
* North Vietnam’s goal: unify Vietnam under its government.

North Vietnam only needed to **outlast U.S. political will**, which eventually happened after the Paris Peace Accords.

**Lesson:**
Wars are decided by **whether political objectives are achieved**, not just battlefield statistics.

---

✅ **Key takeaway:**
Indicators like infrastructure destruction, leadership casualties, air force losses, or intercepted missiles are **tactical indicators**, not strategic ones.

The Vietnam War demonstrates that a country can appear **devastated militarily and economically yet still win** if:

* it maintains political cohesion,
* sustains recruitment and logistics,
* and outlasts the opponent’s political will.
.
Click to expand...

Your copy and paste multiple pages from AI posting style is embarrassing. But I’ll go ahead and dismantle this for you without AI in a few simple sentences.

Vietnam had allies. Who is aiding Iran right now? O yeah, no one. If anything one of their biggest allies is openly aiding us
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol and purp
#15,940
#15,940
www.breitbart.com

Nolte: CNN-IRGC Spreads Hoax Trump Surprised by Iran Threatening Strait of Hormuz

CNN's latest hoax is the ridiculous claim that the Trump administration did not expect Iran to threaten the Strait of Hormuz.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

www.breitbart.com

Nolte: Iran Is the Second Time CNN Teamed with Middle East Dictator to Undermine America

The Iranian government need not make any demands or make any threats to force CNN to undermine the American war effort. The Iranian government already knows CNN is a natural ally in this war. | Media
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

No way.
 
#15,942
#15,942
redstate.com

This Brilliant Move by the Iranian People Against Their Oppressors May Just Make Your Day

Iranian citizens aid Israeli strikes on Basij checkpoints, fueling resistance against oppressive regime.
redstate.com redstate.com

"Israel has been relying in part on target information sent by ordinary Iranians for strikes carried out during the current war with Iran, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The report said this was the case on Wednesday night, when an Israeli Hermes UAV struck Basij checkpoints in Tehran, citing a senior Israeli security official.
The official said Iranians on the ground have been transmitting information in Persian through Israeli social media accounts. According to the report, the information is first verified and vetted by Israeli authorities, and action is taken only after it is found to be accurate."
 
#15,943
#15,943
Vol8188 said:
This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.
Click to expand...

Without regime change, there is no victory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123, hog88 and Rickyvol77
#15,946
#15,946
Vol8188 said:
Did anyone else notice he defended welfare receipts not having jobs because “they won’t expend the work ethic needed”…..well, I guess we should just cut them a check.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about cutting them a check. The people he is talking about need to go to Walmart and McDonald's, not assisted living facilities.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top