6 minutes ago, JimCM said:

And rightly so. If UAE allowed US air based to be used for strikes on Iran, then they deserve to be bombed .

I don't know what all the reasons are, but most Arab nations do not side with Iran.

22 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Both India and Pakistan have nukes. These are people that have sub-80 IQs, <deleted> in the streets and practice cousin marriage yet the world allowed them to get nukes.

You liken low IQs and crapping in the streets with a regime that killed at least 40,000 of it's own citizens for protesting? A regime that wants the destruction of the west. A regime that sponsors terrorist groups across the ME. It's not a sensible comparison.

Posts with content from unapproved social media sources have been removed :

18. Social media content is acceptable in most forums. However, in factual areas such as, but not limited to news, current affairs and health topics, social media cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or a government agency and must include a link to the original source. In some circumstances, a moderator may relax this rule and this will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If this rule is relaxed, a moderator will post a public notice explaining the limit and scope of the relaxation.

A post with unattributed content has been removed.

14 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You liken low IQs and crapping in the streets with a regime that killed at least 40,000 of it's own citizens for protesting? A regime that wants the destruction of the west. A regime that sponsors terrorist groups across the ME. It's not a sensible comparison.

My point is it isn't about the nukes, it's about an ulterior motive to protect the interests of Israel and they are doing do so via the Jewish diaspora in America subverting the government.

All Americans need to do is ban all Muslims from entering the country and keep them thousands of miles away in the desert.

15 hours ago, dinsdale said:

But will the regime fall? The IRGC will be the key. Will there be defections and can this mob of murderers be taken down. A

ir power alone is unlikely in and of itself to force regime change.

Haven't got my glasses on and thought that said - will there be elections.

Hello Mr D didn't realise it was you.

I am a glass half empty man admittedly, but it ain't looking good to me. And deadly and expensive.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

And rightly so. If UAE allowed US air based to be used for strikes on Iran, then they deserve to be bombed .

Fair enough, all the reason more for US to pull entirely out of the Middle East and let Israel right their own wars.

5 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

Fair enough, all the reason more for US to pull entirely out of the Middle East and let Israel right their own wars.

Who then secures the straights of Hormuz ?

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Who then secures the straights of Hormuz ?

not the US? Arabs are open for trade so why the meddling in the region?

14 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

not the US? Arabs are open for trade so why the meddling in the region?

“Meddling”? Or providing security?

The Gulf states are open for trade and that trade depends on secure sea lanes. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close or disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, the single most important energy chokepoint on the planet. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant share of global LNG move through it.

Even a temporary disruption spikes energy prices, inflates shipping and insurance costs, strains supply chains and hits global growth. That isn’t theoretical, its a proven markets reaction that moves to threats alone.

If Iran were to combine that leverage with stronger nuclear capability, the deterrence equation shifts dramatically. Gulf nations do not have the scale of military capability to independently counter a state with ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines and a nuclear threshold position. That’s precisely why they seek US security guarantees. It isn’t fealty - it’s risk management.

When your economy depends on open sea lanes and you sit within missile range of a power that has threatened to close them, you look for an ally with the capacity to keep them open.

... So meddling ?... No.

33 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The Gulf states are open for trade and that trade depends on secure sea lanes. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close or disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, the single most important energy chokepoint on the planet. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant share of global LNG move through it.

why have the threatened that though? What's the threat they're facing?

18 hours ago, sharot724 said:

No longer Republican party as well as policies, both yielding to maga.

Thomas Massie breaks ranks as one of the only House Republicans to oppose Trump's war in Iran

No worries. Multiple Democrats in both the House and the Senate will back the action. It looks like more Democrats than republicans will break ranks on this.

On 2/28/2026 at 3:44 PM, NorthernRyland said:

Both India and Pakistan have nukes. These are people that have sub-80 IQs, <deleted> in the streets and practice cousin marriage yet the world allowed them to get nukes.

I'm not sure you have much grasp of what IQ numbers mean. Every nation on earth includes people with sub-80 IQs, but average Indian and US IQs are about the same. Americans marry their cousins (18 states allow first cousin marriages, with another 8 imposing some restrictions). About 4000 marriages in the US are first cousin.

So access to nuclear weapons should be determined by access to toilets. About 2 million Americans (0.6% of the population) don't have access to a household toilet, so I suppose they must poo in the street. In the UK, 1 in 500 (0.2%) doesn't have access to their own toilet. So given an American is 3 times more likely to poo in the street than a Brit, time to give up those nukes. Or rethink the criteria, and actually understand what IQ means.

IQ is a measure of intelligence not education. You are suggesting that race determines intelligence. That is a horrifying suggestion, I thought we had seen the last of that when the Nazis were measuring skull size.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

“Meddling”? Or providing security?

The Gulf states are open for trade and that trade depends on secure sea lanes. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close or disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, the single most important energy chokepoint on the planet. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant share of global LNG move through it.

Even a temporary disruption spikes energy prices, inflates shipping and insurance costs, strains supply chains and hits global growth. That isn’t theoretical, its a proven markets reaction that moves to threats alone.

If Iran were to combine that leverage with stronger nuclear capability, the deterrence equation shifts dramatically. Gulf nations do not have the scale of military capability to independently counter a state with ballistic missiles, drones, naval mines and a nuclear threshold position. That’s precisely why they seek US security guarantees. It isn’t fealty - it’s risk management.

When your economy depends on open sea lanes and you sit within missile range of a power that has threatened to close them, you look for an ally with the capacity to keep them open.

... So meddling ?... No.

A change of government in Tehran will not change a single thing with respect to Iran's relationship with the region. The old Shah of Iran spent an enormous amount on defence spending (the Challenger tank only exists because he funded the development. Iran was the only non-US operator of F14 Tomcats, and started a nuclear program programme in the 1970s).

He had a project, called "The Great Civilisation", which was to transform Iran into a power rivaling the European powers by 1990, and dominating the Middle East, and by 2000, into a Super Power competing with the US. Possibly sheer fantasy, but a statement of intent that he was not that interested in equitable or fraternal realtions with his Arab neighbours (Iranians can be insufferable pricks when they get on their high horse about the "Persian Empire").

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/17/archives/shah-of-iran-warns-outsiders-against-gulf-military-positions.html

We have declared before that we would not want to see any foreign presence in the gulf, England, the United States, or China — our policy hasn't changed,” the Shah said. He was responding to questions about the new American agreement to keep naval facilities at Bahrain after Britain's with drawal of forces from the area last month.........The Shah, in a more gentle manner, suggested that Washington would do well to leave the defense of the gulf to Iran. “I think the United States realizes it can't be an international gendarme and that world stability should be assured by countries that can assume this responsibility in different re gions,” he said, adding, “How many times can you repeat the Vietnam experience?”

Emphasizing that Iran had no “imperialistic designs,” the Shah said his country's role in the gulf was to promote the region's security and stability and contribute to the technical needs of some of its countries.

For us the control of the gulf and Strait of Hormuz is not a problem because with 1,000 kilometers of coastline [625 miles] and 10 naval and air bases, we can always close the strait.”

10 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You should just report insane trolling crap like that when you see it. I do and did. Dont give him the attention he no desperately needs.

Report BLM? No way, he's a harmless senior citizen.

His endless memes are rather childlike though.

49 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

A change of government in Tehran will not change a single thing with respect to Iran's relationship with the region. The old Shah of Iran spent an enormous amount on defence spending (the Challenger tank only exists because he funded the development. Iran was the only non-US operator of F14 Tomcats, and started a nuclear program programme in the 1970s).

He had a project, called "The Great Civilisation", which was to transform Iran into a power rivaling the European powers by 1990, and dominating the Middle East, and by 2000, into a Super Power competing with the US. Possibly sheer fantasy, but a statement of intent that he was not that interested in equitable or fraternal realtions with his Arab neighbours (Iranians can be insufferable pricks when they get on their high horse about the "Persian Empire").

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/17/archives/shah-of-iran-warns-outsiders-against-gulf-military-positions.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-don-t-think-it-s-remotely-possible-sen-jack-reed-on-regime-change-in-iran/vi-AA1XjDiE?ocid=socialshare

unlikely end-game

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

IQ is a measure of intelligence not education. You are suggesting that race determines intelligence

People are a product of their environments.

If you grow up in a remote village, then you are limited by the narrow-mindedness of the local population.

If you take a person out of there, they become a different person.

But speaking of IQ, maybe the Supreme Leader was an idiot. If he hadn't kept chanting "Death to America!" and played his cards to his chest, no one would have known about his uranium stockpiles and he'd still be alive.

U.S. attacks in Iran prompt renewed push in Congress over war powers

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politifact/2026/03/01/us-attacks-in-iran-prompt-renewed-push-in-congress-over-war-powers/

time is ripe

12 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I don't know what all the reasons are, but most Arab nations do not side with Iran.

Race to be frank - Iranians (Persians) are Aryan not Arabs.

A second consideration is that Iranians are Shia Muslims, those running the show in the Arab world are predominantly Sunni Muslims. They make the C17 split between Catholics and Prorestants in Europe look like a tiff between cousins!

"Oops, we've done it again" - school bombed in Iran, 148 killed!

All that stunning high tech precision strike techniques from those magnificent men in their flying machines, and they've killed 148 children!

Still, must be s comfort to the parents, to know their little ones died deflecting from the Epstein files.

I don't think as a rule one should prejudge the Almighty, but there is one fat orange bastard who is going to burn in hell for eternity!

14 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The Guardian is not objective.

They hate Trump and it's all Trump bad nonsense 24/7.

Portraying him as a reckless gambler is silly stupid journalism. He has a massive real estate empire.

What happened? Nothing out of character. Trump the businessman was always a reckless gambler, whether building casinos in Atlantic City or launching his own ill-fated airline.

They are just pointing out his character. He's impulsive and narcissistic - which should be clear to everyone by now - 'gambler' doesn't refer to playing at casinos it was about getting his name splashed across everything and anything. He is, by nature, a gambler. As he's doing now with the entire middle east, America and maybe the world with his 'big beautiful war'.

18 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I don't think the Board of Peace is bs or a dead deal.

It's meant to stabilize the middle east.

Iran was a rogue nation. They don't want to play along.

That's how I see it ... could be wrong.

why don't you tell that to the Pakistani who just gave 1 billion to that BS

18 hours ago, blaze master said:

The distraction would help folks of ALL political stripes.

but mostly by the MAGA cronies that can't see a foot in front of their eyes

12 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

why don't you tell that to the Pakistani who just gave 1 billion to that BS

Do you really think Trump is going around scamming world leaders out of 1 billion dollars? Or that world leaders are stupid enough to fall for scams?

14 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

why have the threatened that though? What's the threat they're facing?

Are you asking because you don't know - or are you asking because you want to defend Iran for making those threats ?

20 hours ago, JimCM said:

21 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Dubai hasn't seen anything yet.

And rightly so. If UAE allowed US air based to be used for strikes on Iran, then they deserve to be bombed .

Really, you believe that the Gulf states deserve to be bombed - that their civilians merit death - because their governments sought regional security and turned to the United States for that security ?

These are states that have lived for decades under the shadow of repeated Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz - a maritime chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes. Tehran has publicly warned on multiple occasions that if sanctions restrict its own exports, it could impede the exports of others. Those sanctions were not conjured from thin air; they followed disputes over Iran’s nuclear programme and periods in which international inspectors reported obstruction, limited access, or non-compliance with agreed transparency measures.

Whether one agrees with Western policy or not, it is a considerable leap to conclude that civilian populations should bear the cost of geopolitical brinkmanship. Governments make strategic calculations - sometimes wisely, sometimes poorly - but ordinary men, women and children do not forfeit their right to life because of the alliances their leaders pursue.

To argue otherwise is to confuse statecraft with collective punishment - and that is a moral line worth guarding.

Trump says 9 Iranian ships sunk

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/01/9-iranian-naval-ships-have-been-destroyed-and-sunk-trump-says/

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Sunday that nine Iranian naval ships have been sunk as part of combat operations against Iran.

“I have just been informed that we have destroyed and sunk 9 Iranian Naval Ships, some of them relatively large and important,” Trump wrote in a post on X, adding that Iran’s naval headquarters has been “largely destroyed” in a different attack.

https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/200700/uss-abraham-lincoln-targeted-ballistic-missiles-ww3-fears-soar/amp

Iran telling porkies. About hitting a us carrier

Iran targets USS Abraham Lincoln 'with ballistic missiles' as brutal war escalates

the-express.com

19 hours ago

Iran vowed to take revenge after Khamenei's death

https://res.6chcdn.feednews.com/assets/v2/c31768ac75860ce15983c6b85ce9aeee?source=nlp&quality=uhq&format=webp&resize=720

The US Central Command, which is responsible for operations in the region, has denied the claims (Image: PA)

Iran has claimed to have struck the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier as Tehran launches strikes against US military assets. In a statement carried by Iranian state media, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said four ballistic missiles were fired at the US Navy aircraft carrier in waters near the Gulf region.

The strike was described as part of what Tehran has dubbed "Operation True Promise-4," a broader military campaign targeting American and Israeli assets. The Guards said in a statement shared by local media: "The US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was struck by four ballistic missiles." They said "the land and sea will increasingly become the graveyard of the terrorist aggressors."

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Do you really think Trump is going around scamming world leaders out of 1 billion dollars? Or that world leaders are stupid enough to fall for scams?

both

Gunman shoots people in a bar in Austin, Texas.

He was wearing a "Property of Allah" sweatshirt.

Any one of us can get killed anywhere in the world by a disgruntled anti-Iran war hater is what I'm getting from this.

1 hour ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Trump says 9 Iranian ships sunk

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/01/9-iranian-naval-ships-have-been-destroyed-and-sunk-trump-says/

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Sunday that nine Iranian naval ships have been sunk as part of combat operations against Iran.

“I have just been informed that we have destroyed and sunk 9 Iranian Naval Ships, some of them relatively large and important,” Trump wrote in a post on X, adding that Iran’s naval headquarters has been “largely destroyed” in a different attack.

Relatively large and important?? Surely they were the bigliest most unsinkable ships ever made and no-one could have sunk them, they said it was impossible, nothing like this has ever been done ever in the whole wide world.

And no verification of it anywhere by the way.

Meanwhile, it's only Day 2 but the US are already doing what the US does best - shooting itself.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cy0dp1l57nxt?post=asset%3Ab1182296-4b87-4ce7-b517-1e4d1a82a97e#post