Game On!

Live on India Today: https://youtu.be/Hfvca9O8Lro

Closer look at the Bahrain hit - video used in Telegraph live feed so assumed real.If this is the 5th Fleet HQ as reported you would think thet would have cast iron AD.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Trump did absolutely nothing to try to sell this war to the American people

He's really acting like a dictator.

Now that he did this I hope it's short and that Iran loses.

I doubt the Iranian people will be liberated but a weakened Iran will help the Ukraine war effort which is ironic as Trump clearly favors Russia.

As for helping the ukrainians ... That kind of depends on the price of oil and gas. In the short run it's certainly going to rise sharply which helps the Russians.

1 hour ago, JackGats said:

I'm all for disposing of Khamenei, but attacking while negotiations are going on is not cricket

Tell that to Putin!

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually helping the ukrainians ... That kind of depends on the price of oil and gas. In the short run it's certainly going to rise sharply which helps Russians.ee

Exactly if the price goes north of $100 Putin gets a payday. Plus China/Russia get a read out of US capabilities in an active theater - that is gold dust strategically.

14 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As for helping the ukrainians ... That kind of depends on the price of oil and gas. In the short run it's certainly going to rise sharply which helps the Russians.

Not necessarily very much.

With all the sanctions Russian energy is a separate lowet market.

Of course I was referring to the weapons help Iran has been doing.

Most Russian Shaheds are now made in country under licence from Iran in return for S35 Flankers and S400 batteries - yet to be delivered.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2025/08/10/shaheds-for-what-russia-drone-deal-may-have-given-iran-sellers-remorse/

Russia’s Iranian-designed propeller-driven Shahed-136 one-way explosive-laden attack drones have repeatedly targeted Ukraine’s cities for just under three years straight. During that time, Russia has applied substantial modifications, changing the engines, warheads, and even the color of these drones. As a result, Iran’s leadership has reportedly come to regret aspects of the arrangement under which it provided Russia with its homegrown drones.

There are increasing signs that authorities in Tehran are feeling seller’s remorse since Moscow localized almost 90% of its Shahed production and made these more sophisticated versions with limited Iranian input, according to a CNN report published on Friday.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not necessarily very much.

With all the sanctions Russian energy is a separate lowet market.

Of course I was referring to the weapons help Iran has been doing.

It depends how serious the shortage gets. Right now it's easy to do without Russian oil or to make the Russians except less. Those conditions won't obtain if oil and gas supplies are seriously disrupted for a few weeks

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It depends how serious the shortage gets. Right now it's easy to do without Russian oil or to make the Russians except less. Those conditions won't obtain if oil and gas supplies are seriously disrupted for a few weeks

Russia is a secondary consideration from any angle. China is the target here. China lost Venezuelan oil a few months ago. Now, it will see Iranian oil diminished if not completely curtailed. I just keep wondering what the secondary effect is going to be on places like Thailand.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It depends how serious the shortage gets. Right now it's easy to do without Russian oil or to make the Russians except less. Those conditions won't obtain if oil and gas supplies are seriously disrupted for a few weeks

50% of China's oil comes from Iran if that is heavily disrupted they will be fising in the global markets to make up for the shortfall. If Iran takes out a couple of oilfields and blocks Hormus - it's oil to the moon.

That country has been poking the USA since 1979. Their terror proxies were at war with the western world.This guy use to be a dead on Democrat surrogate.

Trump's actions against Iran are 'heroic' and 'long overdue,' former House Judiciary counsel says

Just been sent this via Messenger

Time to boycott USA and Israel.

It's all about Israel, and the Israel lobby determines US policy in the ME.

Netanyahu has to be taken out, as well as his ultra fundamentalist cabinet, who are religious nutters.

Well another bankrupt operation from the Trump crime family....

3 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Time to boycott USA and Israel.

It's all about Israel, and the Israel lobby determines US policy in the ME.

Netanyahu has to be taken out, as well as his ultra fundamentalist cabinet, who are religious nutters.

"Taken out" as in assassinated ?

2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Iran has no choice now except to launch everything they have on the way down.

Exactly, Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. That is a historical fact. The last offensive war initiated by Persia was in the early 19th century. Since 1979, Iran has engaged in proxy conflicts and regional meddling - yes - but it has not launched an invasion of another country. Contrast that with the United States’ record in Iraq in 2003.

And that brings us to the second major issue: the idea that regime change brings “stability.”

The last time the U.S. removed a Middle Eastern government by force - in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - it destabilized the entire region. That war:

• Cost the United States an estimated $7 trillion

• Cost thousands of American lives

• Led directly to the formation of Islamic State (ISIS)

• Strengthened Al-Qaeda in Iraq before it morphed into ISIS

We were told Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t.
We were told regime change would bring democracy and peace. It didn’t.
We were told it would weaken extremism. It fueled it.

Now the same argument is being recycled.

Third - the claim that “tens of thousands of protestors have died in the last couple of months” is simply not supported by credible reporting. Iran has brutally suppressed protests, yes - and hundreds have been killed in past crackdowns - but “tens of thousands in the last couple of months” is not grounded in verified evidence. Exaggeration weakens the case.

Fourth - “Iran is developing long-range missiles to reach America.”
Iran does have missile programs. It does not currently possess an operational ICBM capable of striking the continental United States. Intelligence agencies have assessed that capability as aspirational, not imminent. There is a difference between monitoring a threat and declaring war over a hypothetical future capability.

Fifth - the idea that removing the Iranian government would magically end regional militancy ignores reality. The power vacuum after Saddam Hussein is precisely what allowed ISIS to flourish. Collapsing the Iranian state - a country of 90+ million people - would likely produce:

• Civil war

• Refugee waves dwarfing Syria

• Competing militias

• Regional spillover conflict

History shows that destabilization often empowers radicals, not moderates.

Sixth - the claim that “they are conquering Europe by numbers” is demographic fear rhetoric, not strategic analysis. Immigration debates are legitimate policy discussions. Framing civilians and refugees as invaders is political messaging, not security intelligence.

Seventh - the assertion that nearly “100% of Iranians abroad hate the regime” is anecdotal and unverifiable. The Iranian diaspora is diverse. Many oppose the regime. Some support it. Others are politically disengaged. Absolutes like “100%” are propaganda language.

Now - is the Iranian regime authoritarian? Yes.
Does it suppress dissent? Yes.
Does it fund proxy groups? Yes.

But none of that automatically makes full-scale war or regime change in America’s strategic interest.

The question isn’t whether the regime is repressive. The question is:

Will America safer?

Based on Iraq, the answer is far from obvious.

Strategic policy should be based on:

• Verified intelligence

• Cost-benefit analysis

• Long-term consequences

• Historical precedent

I'm not at all saying the intention is to help Ukraine but the two major military allies of Russia in their genocidal war are North Korea and Iran. So hopefully down to one..

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

Tell that to Putin!

Putin was only fake negotiating to sucker Trump.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm not at all saying the intention is to help Ukraine but the two major military allies of Russia in their genocidal war are North Korea and Iran. So hopefully down to one..

What on earth are you on about, stay on topic.

The only country doing genocide is Israel.

Looks like this Israeli/American's $400 million donation to Trump has paid off.

She'll be laughing now, c as well as all the other billionaires who donate to the Israel lobby.

Oh boy here we go again...usa opens can of whoop ass on vietnam and found out that all those "little third world asians" were a bit tougher than the big bad boys thought....then afganistan and iraq....now iran..

gee i thought trump promised he would put an end to all these endless wars...

oh thats right he did promise that which means absolutely nothing as he promised everything under the sun.....so much for $2 gas and nobel peace prizes

America certainly likes to start wars all over the world thats why they spend more on defence war equipment than the next 10 countries combined.

I suppose in order to justify that they have to use some of it up from time to time.

Usually by saying they were being threatened and were acting to protect themselves total BS of course but how else are they going to sell it to the voters and keep their defence war industries going.

36 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Exactly, Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. That is a historical fact. The last offensive war initiated by Persia was in the early 19th century. Since 1979, Iran has engaged in proxy conflicts and regional meddling - yes - but it has not launched an invasion of another country. Contrast that with the United States’ record in Iraq in 2003.

And that brings us to the second major issue: the idea that regime change brings “stability.”

The last time the U.S. removed a Middle Eastern government by force - in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - it destabilized the entire region. That war:

• Cost the United States an estimated $7 trillion

• Cost thousands of American lives

• Led directly to the formation of Islamic State (ISIS)

• Strengthened Al-Qaeda in Iraq before it morphed into ISIS

We were told Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t.
We were told regime change would bring democracy and peace. It didn’t.
We were told it would weaken extremism. It fueled it.

Now the same argument is being recycled.

Third - the claim that “tens of thousands of protestors have died in the last couple of months” is simply not supported by credible reporting. Iran has brutally suppressed protests, yes - and hundreds have been killed in past crackdowns - but “tens of thousands in the last couple of months” is not grounded in verified evidence. Exaggeration weakens the case.

Fourth - “Iran is developing long-range missiles to reach America.”
Iran does have missile programs. It does not currently possess an operational ICBM capable of striking the continental United States. Intelligence agencies have assessed that capability as aspirational, not imminent. There is a difference between monitoring a threat and declaring war over a hypothetical future capability.

Fifth - the idea that removing the Iranian government would magically end regional militancy ignores reality. The power vacuum after Saddam Hussein is precisely what allowed ISIS to flourish. Collapsing the Iranian state - a country of 90+ million people - would likely produce:

• Civil war

• Refugee waves dwarfing Syria

• Competing militias

• Regional spillover conflict

History shows that destabilization often empowers radicals, not moderates.

Sixth - the claim that “they are conquering Europe by numbers” is demographic fear rhetoric, not strategic analysis. Immigration debates are legitimate policy discussions. Framing civilians and refugees as invaders is political messaging, not security intelligence.

Seventh - the assertion that nearly “100% of Iranians abroad hate the regime” is anecdotal and unverifiable. The Iranian diaspora is diverse. Many oppose the regime. Some support it. Others are politically disengaged. Absolutes like “100%” are propaganda language.

Now - is the Iranian regime authoritarian? Yes.
Does it suppress dissent? Yes.
Does it fund proxy groups? Yes.

But none of that automatically makes full-scale war or regime change in America’s strategic interest.

The question isn’t whether the regime is repressive. The question is:

Will America safer?

Based on Iraq, the answer is far from obvious.

Strategic policy should be based on:

• Verified intelligence

• Cost-benefit analysis

• Long-term consequences

• Historical precedent

Remind us who Iraq was fighting a war in 1980 jimMC?

According to the NY Times, Canada and Australia are backing the action against Iran. Distinctly different from UK's Starmer who seems to be trying to duck and hide.

'Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada and his foreign minister, Anita Anand, backed the American action. “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security,” they said in a joint statement.' https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-trump/7440c172-7925-5325-85fd-241947f9f4dc?smid=url-share

'Anthony Albanese, the prime minister of Australia, said his government endorsed the U.S. attacks on Iran. “We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security,” he said in a statement. He said Iran has been a “destabilizing force” for decades, and pointed to the two terrorist attacks in 2024 in Australia that the Australian government had said had been directed by an arm of the Iranian military. In one attack, men set fire to a Jewish kosher restaurant, and in another arsonists firebombed a synagogue, injuring one congregant. Australia expelled the Iranian ambassador afterward. (Reporting from Washington)' https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/02/28/world/iran-strikes-trump/836eb336-49c5-50ef-9848-e5ea69ec1982?smid=url-share

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

I would expect Iran to retaliate by hitting American air bases. All American enemies have to wonder why they can't hit the American mainland. Perhaps they have planned for this but I see nothing they can retaliate with.

Aww why worry we have cosplay Barbie in charge of homeland security what could possibly go wrong…….😑

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

Exactly, Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. That is a historical fact. The last offensive war initiated by Persia was in the early 19th century. Since 1979, Iran has engaged in proxy conflicts and regional meddling - yes - but it has not launched an invasion of another country. Contrast that with the United States’ record in Iraq in 2003.

And that brings us to the second major issue: the idea that regime change brings “stability.”

The last time the U.S. removed a Middle Eastern government by force - in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - it destabilized the entire region. That war:

• Cost the United States an estimated $7 trillion

• Cost thousands of American lives

• Led directly to the formation of Islamic State (ISIS)

• Strengthened Al-Qaeda in Iraq before it morphed into ISIS

We were told Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t.
We were told regime change would bring democracy and peace. It didn’t.
We were told it would weaken extremism. It fueled it.

Now the same argument is being recycled.

Third - the claim that “tens of thousands of protestors have died in the last couple of months” is simply not supported by credible reporting. Iran has brutally suppressed protests, yes - and hundreds have been killed in past crackdowns - but “tens of thousands in the last couple of months” is not grounded in verified evidence. Exaggeration weakens the case.

Fourth - “Iran is developing long-range missiles to reach America.”
Iran does have missile programs. It does not currently possess an operational ICBM capable of striking the continental United States. Intelligence agencies have assessed that capability as aspirational, not imminent. There is a difference between monitoring a threat and declaring war over a hypothetical future capability.

Fifth - the idea that removing the Iranian government would magically end regional militancy ignores reality. The power vacuum after Saddam Hussein is precisely what allowed ISIS to flourish. Collapsing the Iranian state - a country of 90+ million people - would likely produce:

• Civil war

• Refugee waves dwarfing Syria

• Competing militias

• Regional spillover conflict

History shows that destabilization often empowers radicals, not moderates.

Sixth - the claim that “they are conquering Europe by numbers” is demographic fear rhetoric, not strategic analysis. Immigration debates are legitimate policy discussions. Framing civilians and refugees as invaders is political messaging, not security intelligence.

Seventh - the assertion that nearly “100% of Iranians abroad hate the regime” is anecdotal and unverifiable. The Iranian diaspora is diverse. Many oppose the regime. Some support it. Others are politically disengaged. Absolutes like “100%” are propaganda language.

Now - is the Iranian regime authoritarian? Yes.
Does it suppress dissent? Yes.
Does it fund proxy groups? Yes.

But none of that automatically makes full-scale war or regime change in America’s strategic interest.

The question isn’t whether the regime is repressive. The question is:

Will America safer?

Based on Iraq, the answer is far from obvious.

Strategic policy should be based on:

• Verified intelligence

• Cost-benefit analysis

• Long-term consequences

• Historical precedent

That’s the beauty about forums, even village idiots get a voice! :)

1 hour ago, riclag said:

That country has been poking the USA since 1979. Their terror proxies were at war with the western world.This guy use to be a dead on Democrat surrogate.

Trump's actions against Iran are 'heroic' and 'long overdue,' former House Judiciary counsel says

I beg to differ making war should be the VERY last option to exercise….in my view welching on the nuclear deal was a mistake.think about the weak hold the mullas have on the Iranians.we know the majority of them are fed up…if Iran had sanctions relived then started acting up again how do you think the population would have reacted to the sanctions on again???I seriously doubt the mullas would have allowed those terriost to attack iseral in the first place and that is the seed that started this new war…..without bennifit of congressional approval I might add….that Mr riclag is against the law.we weren’t attacked first this was started during negotiations……what’s to stop the Iranians in feeling the way we did after Pearl Harbor …..no sir as much of what trump does its ill conceived and stupid…..sorry I’m not very articulate but I think you catch my drift.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

Exactly, Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. That is a historical fact.

Irans proxies , terror organisations funded by Iran :Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis are the groups that caused the recent wars .

Iran/Hamas attacking Isreal kicked off the latest war

There’s a new name being passed around for this war it’s the trump Epstein war….sad

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

There’s a new name being passed around for this war it’s the trump Epstein war….sad

Yes, being passed around by a poster on ASENNOW called Tug