War in Iran?
- Thread starter Cotton
- Start date
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 48,508
Nah.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 48,508
Although if it does, it'll be over in a blink.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 129,530
As long as he does what he did before and only hit very specific targets for our own national security I'm okay with that. He better not put any boots on the ground. He will lose a ton of credibility with about half his constituency. Me included.
bbgun
If you dur me, do I not bleed?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 32,550
1. Trump doesn't think it's "war" unless US troops face mortal danger on the ground. He doesn't want to repeat W's mistakes.
2. Bombing bad guys from above and extracting dictators from third world countries is easier than fixing the cost of living at home.
2. Bombing bad guys from above and extracting dictators from third world countries is easier than fixing the cost of living at home.
Last edited:
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,205
From Grok:
Likelihood of Military Action
Assessing the exact probability is inherently uncertain, as it depends on negotiation outcomes, intelligence, and decisions in Washington. However, recent reporting and analysis indicate elevated risk but not inevitability:
• Experts and sources describe the risk as “exceptionally high” or a situation where conflict may be “difficult to avoid” if talks collapse, with the buildup enabling quick punitive or limited strikes (e.g., on nuclear/missile sites) rather than full regime change or ground invasion.
• Some outlets cite figures like a “90% chance” of action in coming weeks (from advisors or officials in mid-February reports), though these appear speculative or tied to earlier deadlines. Prediction markets and polls (e.g., majority of Americans think action is likely soon, but few support it) reflect public perception of heightened odds.
• Trump has leaned toward limited strikes to pressure concessions, per reports, but military leaders have raised concerns about risks (e.g., escalation, Iranian missile barrages on bases/ships, regional spillover). Iran has vowed proportional retaliation, potentially targeting U.S. assets or allies.
• Diplomacy continues (technical talks planned in Vienna), and both sides appear to prefer avoiding all-out war—Iran due to internal protests and vulnerabilities, the U.S. due to costs and lack of clear exit strategy.
In summary, the odds of some form of U.S. military engagement (likely limited airstrikes) in the near term appear substantial—perhaps in the 50-80% range based on the buildup, rhetoric, and stalled talks—but not certain. The evacuations and asset movements are classic signaling/preparation for worst-case scenarios, not definitive proof of imminent attack. The situation remains fluid, with a narrow window for de-escalation via negotiations. Keep monitoring reliable sources for updates, as developments could shift rapidly.
Likelihood of Military Action
Assessing the exact probability is inherently uncertain, as it depends on negotiation outcomes, intelligence, and decisions in Washington. However, recent reporting and analysis indicate elevated risk but not inevitability:
• Experts and sources describe the risk as “exceptionally high” or a situation where conflict may be “difficult to avoid” if talks collapse, with the buildup enabling quick punitive or limited strikes (e.g., on nuclear/missile sites) rather than full regime change or ground invasion.
• Some outlets cite figures like a “90% chance” of action in coming weeks (from advisors or officials in mid-February reports), though these appear speculative or tied to earlier deadlines. Prediction markets and polls (e.g., majority of Americans think action is likely soon, but few support it) reflect public perception of heightened odds.
• Trump has leaned toward limited strikes to pressure concessions, per reports, but military leaders have raised concerns about risks (e.g., escalation, Iranian missile barrages on bases/ships, regional spillover). Iran has vowed proportional retaliation, potentially targeting U.S. assets or allies.
• Diplomacy continues (technical talks planned in Vienna), and both sides appear to prefer avoiding all-out war—Iran due to internal protests and vulnerabilities, the U.S. due to costs and lack of clear exit strategy.
In summary, the odds of some form of U.S. military engagement (likely limited airstrikes) in the near term appear substantial—perhaps in the 50-80% range based on the buildup, rhetoric, and stalled talks—but not certain. The evacuations and asset movements are classic signaling/preparation for worst-case scenarios, not definitive proof of imminent attack. The situation remains fluid, with a narrow window for de-escalation via negotiations. Keep monitoring reliable sources for updates, as developments could shift rapidly.
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,205
Iran has no hand to play. We’re not going to lift sanctions on them and they are adamantly opposed to dismantling their enrichment program. Obtaining nuclear weapons seems to be the holy grail for them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 129,530
I would be perfectly fine with this.
Cujo
Impossible, sir. It's in Johnson's underwear...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,205
