Iranian Uprising

popper43 said:
Just heard Trump told the 'world' if they want oil from Hormuz, go protect your tankers, we don't have skin in that game. Of course Spain, France and Italy refused US AC landing permission. They try to sound like they want to help, but don't really.
www.thegatewaypundit.com

JUST IN: President Trump Tells Europe and Gulf States to Fix the Strait of Hormuz Themselves Amid Reports That He is Willing to End War Without Reopening Strait - “You’ll Have to Start Learning How to Fight for Yourself. Go Get Your Own Oil!" | The G

President Trump on Tuesday suggested that he will withdraw troops from the Middle East and force Europe, Asia, and the Gulf nations to deal with Iran's blockade on the Strait of Hormuz after they refused his calls for help. President Trump previously asked NATO and Asia for help securing the...
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
Click to expand...

If we walk away without securing the Strait, we’re handing Iran a strategic victory. They go from producing a small slice of global oil to controlling the artery that moves nearly 20% of the world’s supply—able to tax it, restrict it, and weaponize it at will.

The reality is, we’re left with nothing but bad options. There’s no clean solution that guarantees the threat disappears—and the threat alone is enough. Insurance companies don’t need ships getting hit; they just need the risk to be credible. A single drone launched from anywhere keeps that pressure in place, leaving the chokepoint effectively compromised.

I’ll be honest—at the start, I was all for hitting Iran. But what comes after is a whole different level, way above my pay grade. Five weeks in, it’s starting to show just how messy this really is. Forget midterms—what’s coming next is bigger than politics.

Today’s press briefing didn’t offer much clarity. Yes, our military is executing at a level no one else can—delivering tactically in every way. But strategy? That’s where it feels like we’re coming up short.

At some point you have to just say it straight—we’re f#$ked.
 
Jeremy, be honest you never thought destroying the military infrastructure of the worlds leading terrorist state was a good idea. You believed doing nothing, like the previous 47 years would work. Is this because you believe the color revolution rhetoric that marxist/socialists/communists are propagating on the streets and in the universities? Aleksandr Dugin has called for the Islamic secs to come together to defeat the US and western civilization, something Iranian leaders have promised and proudly chanted for 47 years. Do you not believe their words and ACTIONS? The head of the snake gets the attention first.
 
spotstalkshoot said:
Jeremy, be honest you never thought destroying the military infrastructure of the worlds leading terrorist state was a good idea. You believed doing nothing, like the previous 47 years would work. Is this because you believe the color revolution rhetoric that marxist/socialists/communists are propagating on the streets and in the universities? Aleksandr Dugin has called for the Islamic secs to come together to defeat the US and western civilization, something Iranian leaders have promised and proudly chanted for 47 years. Do you not believe their words and ACTIONS? The head of the snake gets the attention first.
Click to expand...
Be honest? No—I never believed doing nothing was the answer. But I also don’t confuse action with strategy, or optics with outcomes.
What I’m calling out is the narrative being pushed by gaslighting politicians—that taking out high-level targets and calling it “regime change” somehow equals a lasting solution. It doesn’t. We struck back at people with American blood on their hands, and that part is justified. But let’s not pretend that cripples the system they operate in.

The IRGC isn’t their conventional army. It’s built to survive exactly this kind of pressure—decentralized, ideological, layered. You don’t “cut the head off the snake” when the snake was designed to grow new heads before the first one even hits the ground. And while all this is unfolding, pay attention to the bigger picture. The messaging swings wildly—escalation one minute, diplomacy the next. That’s not clarity, it’s control. Markets move on that volatility, and insider trading doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There are people benefiting from the chaos while the public is told to pick a side and cheer.

You bring up their rhetoric—and yeah, I hear it. I don’t ignore it. But words and even actions don’t change the reality that strategy matters more than symbolism. If the endgame isn’t clearly defined, if the structure we’re targeting isn’t actually being dismantled, then all we’re doing is feeding a cycle that’s been running for decades. This isn’t about believing inaction works. It’s about recognizing that not all action leads to victory. And if we keep pretending it does, we’re going to learn that lesson the hard way—again.
 
spotstalkshoot said:
Jeremy, be honest you never thought destroying the military infrastructure of the worlds leading terrorist state was a good idea. You believed doing nothing, like the previous 47 years would work. Is this because you believe the color revolution rhetoric that marxist/socialists/communists are propagating on the streets and in the universities? Aleksandr Dugin has called for the Islamic secs to come together to defeat the US and western civilization, something Iranian leaders have promised and proudly chanted for 47 years. Do you not believe their words and ACTIONS? The head of the snake gets the attention first.
Click to expand...

I’ve got nothing but love for the 82nd Airborne—there are guys right now itching to jump in and earn their mustard stains. Same goes for the Marines. You know damn well field grade officers are firing up their devil dogs, selling that “anywhere in the world in 18 hours” mindset. That’s what those units are built for—shock, speed, violence of action. But that’s exactly the problem. Those forces are designed for rapid response to something unexpected… a crisis, a flare-up, something that got out of control. This wasn’t that. We struck first. This wasn’t reacting to chaos—this created it. So the real question is: why weren’t we postured for the second and third order effects before we lit the fuse? Because I don’t think the plan ever included ground forces. I think the assumption was this would collapse fast—decapitation, internal unrest, regime fractures. Clean, quick, done.

But the IRGC doesn’t fight that kind of war. They’ve spent decades planning for this exact scenario. Not to win conventionally—but to survive and drag it out. Their entire doctrine is built around asymmetric warfare—decentralized command, proxy networks, economic disruption, and making the cost of fighting them overwelming, draing public and moral support. What we’re seeing now isn’t them improvising—it’s them executing. They knew they couldn’t match us plane for plane or ship for ship, so they built a strategy around bleeding us slowly—mines in the Strait, drones, proxies, economic pressure. Stretch the timeline, raise the cost, and turn tactical wins into strategic exhaustion.

So maybe the reason it feels like there’s no clear plan right now… is because every serious war game at this stage ends the same way: long, expensive, and politically toxic. And that’s the part nobody wants to say out loud. You’re right—they do want death to America and Israel, and they are going after it. I’m starting to think this wasn’t some grand strategy—it was a gamble. After Venezuela, maybe there was a belief this would play out the same way: hit hard, regime cracks, population flips, done. But Iran isn’t Venezuela. If anything, this is starting to look like a bet that the regime would fall faster than their system was designed to endure. And if that bet was wrong… then we’re not at the beginning of the end. We’re at the end of the beginning.

I pray I am wrong...
 
there is no more toe to toe fighting, no front lines. its all hit and run, hide and repeat. IED's planted everywhere all set off by cell phones. we are just plain lucky that nothing has happened on the ground here in the USA.

if they ever get co-ordinated and hack our entire infrastructure and shut down water and gas, lock up hospital computer systems while setting off a series of bombs in enough areas to over whelm our hospitals we will be in deep do-do

the easiest way to disrupt our nation would be ride around several states and toss flares out the windows rolling down wooded hillsides causing massive wildfires across several states at once.

if i can think of these things they can too.

right now this war is over in Iran but they keep threatening to bring it here...will they ?

i also pray i am wrong.
 
" IRGC doesn’t fight that kind of war. " Nope, they will bleed you dry. Same with Cuba, Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Arab states will NOT help, just say OK. Same with Europe. Until Europe gets attacked, then they will cry and expect US to pull them out. Nothing new, just Satan's way of destroying the world.
 
I believe it was thought that the Iranians would rise up and overthrow their Islamic regime and form some sort of democracy.
I still remember pictures from grade school history that showed the Middle East almost westernized.
 
1775002912356.png
 
Interesting posts!
I'm in the camp that believes that Iran should never ever have nuclear weapons or the long-range missiles capable of delivering them that can threaten Europe and eventually the US, this was left go way too long and should have been delt with years ago.
Maybe, just maybe, the Israeli Mossad knows way more about what was transpiring, they seem to be pretty good at what they do!

Watching Rubio right now talking about our NATO "allies" denying the use of their facilities, nothing new there, France, Spain, and Italy denied our planes the right to fly over their airspace on their mission to bomb Libya in 1986, that added 1,300 mi. each way to the mission., like Trump has been saying, it's time to take a good hard look at NATO,
 
Last edited:
A lot of things have changed. For one, we've killed off the weird beards who ran the contry. Coming to terms now does not leave the same people in charge there, as they're dead now

Also, the change in flow of oil there doesn't have the same impact it used to, not for us. We are now the #1 oil producer on the planet. And we now have Venezuela sending their oil to us instead of russia & china
 
Stu Farish said:
Also, the change in flow of oil there doesn't have the same impact it used to, not for us. We are now the #1 oil producer on the planet. And we now have Venezuela sending their oil to us instead of russia & china
Click to expand...

That’s not really how it works. Being the #1 producer doesn’t mean we’re insulated. The U.S. is a net exporter—but not energy independent. We export WTI (light, sweet crude) and still import heavier crude—like what’s coming out of Venezuela—because that’s what our refineries are built to run.

So yeah, Venezuela sending oil here instead of China matters—but it actually proves the point: we still need those heavier barrels to keep the system balanced. And on top of that, oil isn’t priced locally—it’s global. Brent sets the market, and it carries a geopolitical premium tied to things like Middle East instability and shipping risks.

So a disruption in the Strait still hits prices here whether we like it or not. Being a top producer doesn’t make us immune—it just means we’re a bigger player in a system we’re still dependent on.

And when Trump says we ‘don’t need the oil,’ that’s straight up gaslighting—because it ignores how the system actually works.
 
bohunr said:
there is no more toe to toe fighting, no front lines. its all hit and run, hide and repeat. IED's planted everywhere all set off by cell phones. we are just plain lucky that nothing has happened on the ground here in the USA.

if they ever get co-ordinated and hack our entire infrastructure and shut down water and gas, lock up hospital computer systems while setting off a series of bombs in enough areas to over whelm our hospitals we will be in deep do-do

the easiest way to disrupt our nation would be ride around several states and toss flares out the windows rolling down wooded hillsides causing massive wildfires across several states at once.

if i can think of these things they can too.

right now this war is over in Iran but they keep threatening to bring it here...will they ?

i also pray i am wrong.
Click to expand...
We’ve been here before—we just don’t like admitting it. In 2003, we went into Iraq trained and equipped to fight a conventional army—something like the Russians. It was a straight push to Baghdad, fast and aggressive. But the second that war shifted, there were no clear front lines anymore. Our Humvees and troop carriers were built for rear-area movement, not constant exposure. Flat-bottomed, lightly armored—they took the full force of IEDs. Guys were welding scrap metal onto doors like something out of Mad Max, and we lined the floors with sand bags. It took over a year before we adapted—armored vehicles, MRAPs, V-shaped hulls to deflect blasts.

We learned the hard way what happens when you’re prepared for the wrong fight. Now fast forward—we’ve had years watching Ukraine, watching FPV drones change the battlefield. Cheap, precise, everywhere. And we’re still not fully adapted. Defensive posture, countermeasures, even basic things like proper shielding and barriers aren’t where they should be. You saw it with our re-fuelers setting on an open tarmac in Saudi Arabia-assets sitting exposed, getting hit. Same pattern—different threat.

You’re right, there aren’t clean front lines anymore. It’s layered—drones, cyber, proxies, hit-and-run. But that doesn’t mean it’s chaos everywhere all at once. It means the battlefield is evolving faster than institutions do. As for it ‘coming here’—that’s a different threshold. Could bad actors hit infrastructure, cause disruption, even coordinate attacks? Sure, that risk exists. But pulling off something large-scale, synchronized across multiple states while evading intelligence and response—that’s a much higher bar than people think.

The bigger concern isn’t some movie-style collapse overnight—it’s exactly what we’ve seen before: adapting too slowly to the threat that’s already in front of us. We don’t lose because we don’t have capability—we lose time figuring out what kind of war we’re actually in…
 
spotstalkshoot said:
What's the winning strategy? You can't just criticize, it needs to be constructive.
Click to expand...

Fair question. I wasn’t in the planning or intel briefs—like most of us, I started out just watching it through open sources while leaders were talking tough and pushing negotiations backed by force.

Now that it’s actually unfolding, it’s a lot messier than it sounded early on. If there is a winning strategy, adapt faster than the threat, and not falling behind again. But being honest, watching how this is playing out, a clean answer feels pretty bleak at the moment.

I’m open to your thoughts too—what do you think the path forward looks like?
 
Back
Top