Takeaways from the Iran war.

When starting a war that has the potential to start a global recession and ultimately to turn into WW 3, make damn sure you've exhausted all other options.

Oh, and it helps to not have a senile con man as your president.

Takeaways from the Iran war.

When starting a war in the world's most volatile and economically sensitive area, with no planned strategic aims, targets or exit points, expect bad s**t to happen.

In fact, you can count on it.

Who knew that the biggest winner in this war so far would be Russia? Trump has lifted sanctions on the sale of (suddenly very expensive) Russian oil to India, giving Putin much-needed income to prop up his murderous war in Ukraine.

And, another happy (for Putin) consequence of the conflict is that there will be no Patriot missiles available for Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

Smiles all around in Moscow.

One of the big takeaways so far (IMHO) is the asymmetric cost of Iran using low cost drones against sophisticated, state-of-the-art US systems. So far, they're estimated to have contributed to the loss of nearly $2 billion-worth of US equipment in just the first few days.

Iran strike cripples $1.1B US radar

The AN/FPS-132 early warning radar at Al Udeid Air Base, worth about $1.1 billion, was hit during Iran’s opening retaliation, with Qatari officials confirming significant damage.

The radar’s destruction is part of an estimated $1.902 billion in US military losses in just four days of conflict. Other hits include a $500 million AN/TPY-2 radar in the UAE, three F-15E Strike Eagles lost in a Kuwaiti friendly fire incident, and damage to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet HQ in Bahrain.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/insight/iran-strike-cripples-1-1b-us-radar/gm-GM50FF690B

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

Who knew that the biggest winner in this war so far would be Russia?

And the biggest loser China? This crackpot predicts Iran strikes could precipitate the downfall of the CCP.

Meanwhile, the bombs keep falling and we keep winning

Huge developments:

Lebanon is announcing that Hezbollah fighters are subject to arrest. In return Israel is laying off most of Beirut. The Bekaa valley is Hell.

We are using Laser and IR on drones. They are working fabulous. So much for warfare being nothing but drone wars.

Russia is giving targeting information to Iran. Ut oh, thats nasty.

The Arabs are ordering drone defenses from Ukraine. Triple win for us there.

More doom & gloom predictions:

All I hear is doom and gloom.

3 hours ago, BLMFem said:

If your government renames the Dep. of Defence to Dep. of War, churns out videos that seem to be made by 14 y/o boys for 14 y/o boys and shuts down the Dep. of Education, your nation is heading for history's scrapheap.

No, he really cares--- about curtains

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVZsEmpgVpN/

2 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Who knew that the biggest winner in this war so far would be Russia? Trump has lifted sanctions on the sale of (suddenly very expensive) Russian oil to India, giving Putin much-needed income to prop up his murderous war in Ukraine.

And, another happy (for Putin) consequence of the conflict is that there will be no Patriot missiles available for Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

Smiles all around in Moscow.

But this cuts both ways,also no more drones from Iran to help putin.

5 minutes ago, jvs said:

But this cuts both ways,also no more drones from Iran to help putin.

A months worth of oil means more to India than it does to Russia bottom line.

Shall not dare to make a humble comment here, with all the distinguished scolars on the issue.

But if I may, when will the Strait of Ormuz be totally secured by the apparently 2 of the finest armies in the world that are said to be America and Israel ?

The takeaway from Iran is not that Trump is a war president.

Iran was a country intent on war, so he wants a regime that cooperates.

Trump remains a peace president.

The Peace Board he set up is not dead.

And he gave this speech a while ago.

13 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Who knew that the biggest winner in this war so far would be Russia? Trump has lifted sanctions on the sale of (suddenly very expensive) Russian oil to India, giving Putin much-needed income to prop up his murderous war in Ukraine.

And, another happy (for Putin) consequence of the conflict is that there will be no Patriot missiles available for Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

Smiles all around in Moscow.

I'm sure the Chinese have their calculators out also.

Post breaking forum rules removed @save the frogs

General approach and policy.

We maintain a strict policy of accepting links or content only from mainstream and recognized media sources to ensure that information posted by members is both verifiable and trustworthy. We strive to remain impartial, prioritizing content that meets these standards and removing content that, in our opinion, does not.

 

Consequently, we do not accept content from social media platforms unless it originates from a credible, professional, and qualified source. This approach is essential for upholding the integrity and credibility of the information shared within our community."

Trump is trying to make a deal with the Iran military to stand down.

Trump wants to be involved in selecting the new guy. Makes sense, otherwise we're back to square 1.

16 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

One of the big takeaways so far (IMHO) is the asymmetric cost of Iran using low cost drones against sophisticated, state-of-the-art US systems. So far, they're estimated to have contributed to the loss of nearly $2 billion-worth of US equipment in just the first few days.

Iran strike cripples $1.1B US radar

The AN/FPS-132 early warning radar at Al Udeid Air Base, worth about $1.1 billion, was hit during Iran’s opening retaliation, with Qatari officials confirming significant damage.

The radar’s destruction is part of an estimated $1.902 billion in US military losses in just four days of conflict. Other hits include a $500 million AN/TPY-2 radar in the UAE, three F-15E Strike Eagles lost in a Kuwaiti friendly fire incident, and damage to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet HQ in Bahrain.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/insight/iran-strike-cripples-1-1b-us-radar/gm-GM50FF690B

$3.7 Billion: Estimated Cost of Epic Fury’s First 100 Hours

The first 100 hours (H+100) of the operation are estimated to cost $3.7 billion, or $891.4 million each day. Some of these costs are already budgeted, but most ($3.5 billion) are not.

So 3.5 billion for the first 100 hours plus the 1.1billion for the The AN/FPS-132 early warning radar.

Now this mess will go 4-6 weeks (maybe longer?!). Lets take another 25days only:

Air Operations: Approximately $30 Million Daily

Naval Operations: Approximately $15 Million Daily

Ground Operations: Approximately $1.6 Million Daily

Munitions Expenditures: Approximately 758.1 Million Daily

Air Defense Interceptors: Approximatley 1.7 Billion have been spent in the first 100 hours. Most of these cost were carried by UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar.

Source: Center for strategic & international studies

Read the full article, especially if you are an american taxpayer...

https://www.csis.org/analysis/37-billion-estimated-cost-epic-furys-first-100-hours

4 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

$3.7 Billion: Estimated Cost of Epic Fury’s First 100 Hours

Yeah, but doesn't factor in all the revenue generated by safe, uninterrupted by war trade deals in the middle east for the next decade.

There's trillions of dollars floating back and forth from the middle east.

Crunch those numbers and get back to us.

On 3/4/2026 at 3:32 PM, spidermike007 said:

80% of Americans think Trump used war to distract from Epstein files.

At a time when families are already feeling anxious about global tensions, a new survey has sparked intense debate across the country. Many Americans are questioning the true reasons behind the recent confrontation with Iran. Emotions are high, and people on all sides simply want clarity, safety, and stability for their loved ones.

A newly released survey indicates that roughly 80% of Americans believe that President Donald Trump deliberately initiated the current confrontation with Iran as a strategic distraction from the ongoing publication of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The findings reflect a high level of public skepticism at a time when the administration is facing mounting scrutiny.

Beyond politics, the human cost remains the greatest concern. Service members, civilians, and families across multiple nations are affected by rising instability. In moments like this, many people hope for diplomacy, transparency, and responsible leadership. When tensions rise so quickly, what matters most is protecting lives and preventing further suffering.

References:
Reuters: Americans react to escalating tensions with Iran
BBC News: Iran nuclear concerns and international response
The New York Times: Developments surrounding Jeffrey Epstein documents
International Atomic Energy Agency: Reports on Iran nuclear monitoring
Associated Press: Oil markets react to Middle East instability

It's a case of I believe you but I belive me more.

Sorry about shoveling CHAT GPT on the post but I just didn't have the time to research and debunk if need be.

From your favorite AI and mine:

Short answer: No — there is no credible evidence that 80% of Americans believe that claim. The “80%” statistic appears to come from social-media posts, not a real, verified poll.
1. The “80% poll” claim
The versions of the claim circulating online mostly trace back to Instagram and Facebook posts saying “a new poll suggests 80% of Americans believe Trump started the Iran conflict to distract from Epstein documents.” However, those posts do not cite any legitimate polling organization (like Gallup, Pew, YouGov, Ipsos, etc.). �
Facebook +1
No reputable polling data matching that claim has been reported by major news organizations.
2. What real polls actually show
Recent credible polls show very different numbers about related issues:
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 27% of Americans support U.S. strikes on Iran, while 43% oppose them. �
Reuters
A Washington Post poll found 52% oppose the strikes and 39% support them. �
The Washington Post
Those polls measure support or opposition to the military action, not whether people think it was a distraction.
3. Polls about the Epstein files
Separate polls show strong public interest in the Epstein case, but again not the 80% claim:
About 79% of Americans want all Epstein-related documents released. �
Newsweek +1
Roughly 49% think the government is covering up Epstein’s crimes. �
Wikipedia
4. Bottom line
The “80% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from Epstein documents” statistic does not appear in any credible polling data.
It likely originated from unverified social-media posts or satire/misinformation.
Real polls show mixed views on Iran policy and strong interest in the Epstein files, but nothing close to that claim.
✅ Conclusion: The statement is almost certainly false or misleading.
If you want, I can also show you how to quickly tell when a poll statistic online is fake or unreliable (there are a few easy red flags).

I checked out your Reuters reference but couldn't find your 80%.

Please be careful not to be caught in a social media avalanche.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

There's trillions of dollars floating back and forth from the middle east.

Crunch those numbers and get back to us.

These "trillion of Dollars" floated also whithout this stupid war.

Do your homework and stop interrupting adults when they discuss facts.

3 minutes ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

It's a case of I believe you but I belive me more.

Sorry about shoveling CHAT GPT on the post but I just didn't have the time to research and debunk if need be.

From your favorite AI and mine:

Short answer: No — there is no credible evidence that 80% of Americans believe that claim. The “80%” statistic appears to come from social-media posts, not a real, verified poll.
1. The “80% poll” claim
The versions of the claim circulating online mostly trace back to Instagram and Facebook posts saying “a new poll suggests 80% of Americans believe Trump started the Iran conflict to distract from Epstein documents.” However, those posts do not cite any legitimate polling organization (like Gallup, Pew, YouGov, Ipsos, etc.). �
Facebook +1
No reputable polling data matching that claim has been reported by major news organizations.
2. What real polls actually show
Recent credible polls show very different numbers about related issues:
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 27% of Americans support U.S. strikes on Iran, while 43% oppose them. �
Reuters
A Washington Post poll found 52% oppose the strikes and 39% support them. �
The Washington Post
Those polls measure support or opposition to the military action, not whether people think it was a distraction.
3. Polls about the Epstein files
Separate polls show strong public interest in the Epstein case, but again not the 80% claim:
About 79% of Americans want all Epstein-related documents released. �
Newsweek +1
Roughly 49% think the government is covering up Epstein’s crimes. �
Wikipedia
4. Bottom line
The “80% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from Epstein documents” statistic does not appear in any credible polling data.
It likely originated from unverified social-media posts or satire/misinformation.
Real polls show mixed views on Iran policy and strong interest in the Epstein files, but nothing close to that claim.
✅ Conclusion: The statement is almost certainly false or misleading.
If you want, I can also show you how to quickly tell when a poll statistic online is fake or unreliable (there are a few easy red flags).

I checked out your Reuters reference but couldn't find your 80%.

Please be careful not to be caught in a social media avalanche.

Even if the 80% figure is not credible a lot of the figures that you state are pretty bad news for Trump.

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

pretty bad news for Trump.

And bad news for Trump is good news for you.

50 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

And bad news for Trump is good news for you.

That is absolutely correct and I would go so far as to say any bad news for Trump is not only good news for America, but good news for the entire planet. Anything that limits the power of Don the Destroyer is a positive development.

13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Anything that limits the power of Don the Destroyer is a positive development.

I still think he is a "peace president", Iran notwithstanding.

To be continued ...

6 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The takeaway from Iran is not that Trump is a war president.

Iran was a country intent on war, so he wants a regime that cooperates.

Trump remains a peace president.

The Peace Board he set up is not dead.

And he gave this speech a while ago.

"Trump remains a peace president."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

'‘Peace President’ Breaks Record for Attacking the Most Countries'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/peace-president-breaks-record-attacking-141532969.html

"Wannabe Nobel Laureate Donald Trump has now ordered more attacks against a greater number of countries than any other president in modern U.S. history."

3 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

'‘Peace President’ Breaks Record for Attacking the Most Countries'

yahoo news.

lol.

they're still not out of business?

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

yahoo news.

lol.

they're still not out of business?

Such an incredibly lame answer. Are they factually wrong or not?

https://www.cfr.org/articles/guide-trumps-second-term-military-strikes-and-actions

The US State Department has declared a state of emergency related to the war in Iran in order to sell more than 20,000 bombs, worth nearly $660 million, to Israel without congressional approval, the New York Times reports, citing government officials.

The State Department statement, released Friday evening, says Secretary of State Marco Rubio has determined that "an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale" to Israel. This is the first time the Trump administration has declared a state of emergency under the Arms Export Control Act to authorize arms sales to Israel.

Yep, a "peace president"...

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Trump wants to be involved in selecting the new guy. Makes sense, otherwise we're back to square 1.

I hope he is better at picking their new leader than he has been with his WH Cabinet and Venezuelan presidential replacement!