Let me offer a prediction as to how this plays out. The dumb war will go on for months, Trump will continue losing support and his approval numbers will drop to about 30%. The Democrats will pick up Congress in the midterms and there's a good chance they'll pick up the Senate too. If that happens the man is completely neutered, doubly impotent, and not even the janitor of the White House will be returning Trump's phone calls. Graham, Patel and Tiny Pete might be the only ones talking to the guy at that point if Patel and Pete have not been thrown under the bus by November. I think there's even a chance that Trump could get so fed up that he resigns in 2027.

Thereafter Trump will become radioactive, MAGA will collapse and become completely irrelevant, and America will start moving forward into the land of progress. It will take many years to undo the damage the blazing idiot Trump has done, but at least those repairs can begin.

Trump and Little Petie are absolutely floundering at this point, they're in a state of shock that Iran hasn't collapsed and that the people have not risen up and taken over as predicted.

There is no end game there is no plan and they're just winging it at this point. 100% of what the goon has told us about this war so far is fake news and disinformation, and the media has been completely complicit both here and in sad sack Israel.

Trump has also played up this air dominance over the past two weeks.

“And we literally have planes flying over Tehran and other parts of their country; they can’t do a thing about it,” he said on March 24. He added that the United States could strike a power plant, and “they can’t do a thing about it.”

The president has said for weeks that Iran had “no navy,” “no military,” “no air force” and “no anti-aircraft systems.” In a White House address Wednesday night, he said he could hit Iran’s oil facilities, “and there’s not a thing they could do about it.

“They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated,” Trump said. “We are unstoppable as a military force.”

It’s merely the latest example of Trump and those around him apparently exaggerating military success.

Americans have little faith in the mission. They don’t think it’s been explained. The list of four objectives has constantly shifted. And perhaps the biggest problem is economic pessimism resulting from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the subsequent rising gas prices. Americans just don’t think the war is worth the costs.

https://share.google/QREKR6TPF3J9jt9CF

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump and Little Petie are absolutely floundering at this point, they're in a state of shock that Iran hasn't collapsed and that the people have not risen up and taken over as predicted.

There is no end game there is no plan and they're just winging it at this point. 100% of what the goon has told us about this war so far is fake news and disinformation, and the media has been completely complicit both here and in sad sack Israel.

Trump has also played up this air dominance over the past two weeks.

“And we literally have planes flying over Tehran and other parts of their country; they can’t do a thing about it,” he said on March 24. He added that the United States could strike a power plant, and “they can’t do a thing about it.”

The president has said for weeks that Iran had “no navy,” “no military,” “no air force” and “no anti-aircraft systems.” In a White House address Wednesday night, he said he could hit Iran’s oil facilities, “and there’s not a thing they could do about it.

“They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated,” Trump said. “We are unstoppable as a military force.”

It’s merely the latest example of Trump and those around him apparently exaggerating military success.

Americans have little faith in the mission. They don’t think it’s been explained. The list of four objectives has constantly shifted. And perhaps the biggest problem is economic pessimism resulting from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the subsequent rising gas prices. Americans just don’t think the war is worth the costs.

https://share.google/QREKR6TPF3J9jt9CF

Two American planes downed in Iranian airspace, with one of the crew still missing, is not something spin can explain away.

The obvious questions are, how many more of this anti-aircraft capability has Iran got? Who developed the technology to shoot down advanced US fighters?

It is not generally known that, per capita, Iran produces twice as many scientists and engineers as America.

10 hours ago, NanLaew said:

19 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The commercial angle also matters just as much as the military one. Ships aren’t avoiding Hormuz purely because of what Iran might do. They’re avoiding it because the insurance market effectively shuts the route down.

The commercial angle? They're avoiding it because innocent seafarers may be injured or killed .

smh

No - its comes down to insurance.

10 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Its Abu Musa that's key. Its the eyes and ears of Qeshm, telling them whats coming coming their way. This is why suddenly the UAE decides it wants a piece of the action UAE claims Abu Musa as theirs. Its a curious set up. Iran runs the place, its armed to the teeth, but a lot of Emiratis live there, running hotels.

Take out Qeshms radar, and its blind, doesn't matter how many missiles they have. Abu Musa and the associated Greater and Lesser Tunbs, even without radar, can act as coastal observers.

Its such a critical island, that in the 60s, the Royal Navy tasked several ships to prevent the Shah of Iran from grabbing it. Which he did in 1971. Now why would the Shah risk a conflict with the Brits over a tiny island?

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/strait-of-hormuz-islands/

+1 from me - great info.

I'm not sure why you get a thumbs down for such an informative post - too many people in these discussions unable to step away from their political bias.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Two American planes downed in Iranian airspace, with one of the crew still missing, is not something spin can explain away.

The obvious questions are, how many more of this anti-aircraft capability has Iran got? Who developed the technology to shoot down advanced US fighters?

It is not generally known that, per capita, Iran produces twice as many scientists and engineers as America.

The missing crew member has (reportedly) been rescued.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

The missing crew member has been recovered.

That's good news for Trump and Hegseth. It still leaves the question of whether the USA really has absolute air supremacy unresolved.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The missing crew member has (reportedly) been rescued.

Large operation. Reportedly a C130 had to be abandoned on the ground.

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

That's good news for Trump and Hegseth. It still leaves the question of whether the USA really has absolute air supremacy unresolved.

I don’t believe air supremacy can ever be truly absolute - to expect otherwise is perhaps at best, naïve. There is, and always will be, an inherent and unavoidable level of risk in any contested environment. However, the objective is not perfection, but dominance - to reduce that risk to a level where it becomes manageable, predictable, and strategically acceptable.

Thus - In the Iran conflict, air power is ultimately about control, not certainty. Even the most advanced platforms, systems, and doctrines can't eliminate every threat, nor should that be expected. IMO, success lies in the ability to suppress, disrupt, and outpace opposition capabilities to the point where their influence is marginalised and minimal rather than decisive.

In that sense, air supremacy is less a fixed state and more of a constantly contested condition must be maintained via vigilance, adaptability, and continuous technological and tactical evolution.

5 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Large operation. Reportedly a C130 had to be abandoned on the ground.

A special ops C130 costs $150 - $200 million. No wonder Trump wants $1.5 trillion more for defense spending.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I don’t believe air supremacy can ever be truly absolute - to expect otherwise is perhaps at best, naïve. There is, and always will be, an inherent and unavoidable level of risk in any contested environment. However, the objective is not perfection, but dominance - to reduce that risk to a level where it becomes manageable, predictable, and strategically acceptable.

Thus - In the Iran conflict, air power is ultimately about control, not certainty. Even the most advanced platforms, systems, and doctrines can't eliminate every threat, nor should that be expected. IMO, success lies in the ability to suppress, disrupt, and outpace opposition capabilities to the point where their influence is marginalised and minimal rather than decisive.

In that sense, air supremacy is less a fixed state and more of a constantly contested condition must be maintained via vigilance, adaptability, and continuous technological and tactical evolution.

I don't think the US can claim air supremacy while Iran is hitting the Gulf states and Israel with missiles and drones.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

The missing crew member has (reportedly) been rescued.

I certainly hope that's the case, but I'm skeptical of anything that comes out of this Administration and the Pentagon these days. Knowing Trump this could just be another bald-faced lie. Of course if this guy is outed by the Iranians, and paraded on TV, that would be another huge omelet on Don's very ugly face.

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And Grenada! They were both very formidable powers. I guess what I meant to say is that the US has not won a war of significance since the end of World War II. Why? Many reasons. A SEC DEF who could not run a Boy Scout Troop is certainly a liability. And there are so many other reasons why the US has the most expensive military in the world but certainly not the most effective.

Unlike most militaries around the world, the US military cannot repair most of its own equipment, often leaving it broken for months, while they schedule a defense contractor to fly out and change millions to make the repair. Another sign of a highly corrupt industry, and though the US has the most expensive notary in the world, it is anything but efficient.

Defense industry associations argue that “right to repair” threatens their intellectual property, which discourages investment in the research and development necessary to keep the U.S. military on the technological cutting-edge.

But a Pentagon study released in 2023 casts doubt on that argument. The Pentagon directly funds billions of dollars of research every year. And when defense contractors spend their own money on research that benefits the government, the contractor can claim it as a reimbursable cost. In fact, due to the nature of government contracts, defense companies often make more money when they spend more money on research, the study said. More corruption.

The government’s reimbursement of defense-related research and development is far more generous than it is in the commercial world, the study said, which is an effective way to encourage contractors to pursue research that benefits the military.

Last year, “Right to repair” provisions enjoyed bipartisan support from both chambers of Congress, the highest ranks of the military and from officials within President Donald Trump’s administration at the Pentagon and the White House. But none of the provisions made it into the final defense authorization bill.

Why the US military can’t fix a lot of its own gear, even deployed

https://share.google/JXmvYj6UTbzKfVTRC

There's something in that, but its not the whole picture and its a little unfair on the defence industry for reasons I cannot go into detail about. Western weaponry is very effective and very complex, and when push comes to shove, the innovation in the industry when under pressure is awesome. The military sets the requirements, the industry meets the requirement. The military can't absorb the pace of innovation, and where that suffers is In Service Support. 60% of the Americans in Iraq weren't military. And no, they weren't the 'roided SMCs getting a buzz. Most of them were ordinary blokes, engineers, technicians. many would be ex-Forces. None of them wanted to be there, none of them would get a medal for the gig. The money might be good, but you didn't want to end your days in an orange jumpsuit in some video. And often the money wouldn't be that great.

The pace of UORs was so fast, the military couldn't absorb the maintenance lessons, so it was expediant to have in service support in theatre.

Ukraine might be crowing about how they jury rigged RPG7 rockets using 3D-printing to Chinese drones, but it wasn't them who worked out how to integrate NATO standard weaponry onto Soviet era airframes.

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Iran can never be left in any position of any control or threat whatsoever.

absolutely correct, this was always going to happen eventually, it was just a question of when.

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Two American planes downed in Iranian airspace, with one of the crew still missing, is not something spin can explain away.

The obvious questions are, how many more of this anti-aircraft capability has Iran got? Who developed the technology to shoot down advanced US fighters?

It is not generally known that, per capita, Iran produces twice as many scientists and engineers as America.

get with the program, both pilots have been recovered,

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

No - its comes down to insurance.

That's the commoditization of human life. The tankers aren't some sort of autonomous vessel without a crew.

I worked on a project in Nigeria when a nearby pipeline was blown up by "rebels". When force majeure was called on our contract and we evacuated the country, it wasn't because the project's insurers were worried about the loss of production or equipment, it was due to the elevated potential of kidnapping, injury or death of the expats on site.

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Two American planes downed in Iranian airspace, with one of the crew still missing, is not something spin can explain away.

The obvious questions are, how many more of this anti-aircraft capability has Iran got? Who developed the technology to shoot down advanced US fighters?

It is not generally known that, per capita, Iran produces twice as many scientists and engineers as America.

use to have twice as many, a couple of them are missing

27 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

The military sets the requirements, the industry meets the requirement. The military can't absorb the pace of innovation, and where that suffers is In Service Support.

Not always true!

The Defence Industry can be very innovative and propose systems/technology to the Military!

https://www.bing.com/search?q=what%20defence%20industry%20innovations%20have%20the%20military%20adopted&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=what%20defence%20industry%20innovations%20have%20the%20military%20adopted&sc=5-59&sk=&cvid=DECF966FD1B24C7B94F9FAF242373970#:~:text=About%20173%2C000%20results-,Defense%20Industry%20Innovations,innovations%20that%20are%20being%20adopted%20by%20the%20military.%20These%20innovations%20include%3A,-General%20Atomics%20MQ

10 minutes ago, flexomike said:

use to have twice as many, a couple of them are missing

Have you got something to contribute to this thread, or have you just come here to pick nits?

Maybe Trump asked for a ceasefire so that JD could go to Hungary to help prop up Orban, who is heading for defeat in the upcoming election.

The VPOTUS is going to a European country with less that 10 million people to help elect a Putin stooge. But Trump isn't compromised, no siree Bob!

Oh, how the once mighty US has fallen.

'Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is waging cognitive warfare on a new scale.'

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/hungary-first-post-reality-political-campaign/686565/?gift=hVZeG3M9DnxL4CekrWGK30G6-ci1eOx_e6MnGXgrr8c&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

59 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Knowing Trump this could just be another bald-faced lie.

It concerns me that I actually believe that Trump could do such an insensitive thing just to boost his ego!

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Not always true!

The Defence Industry can be very innovative and propose systems/technology to the Military!

https://www.bing.com/search?q=what%20defence%20industry%20innovations%20have%20the%20military%20adopted&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=what%20defence%20industry%20innovations%20have%20the%20military%20adopted&sc=5-59&sk=&cvid=DECF966FD1B24C7B94F9FAF242373970#:~:text=About%20173%2C000%20results-,Defense%20Industry%20Innovations,innovations%20that%20are%20being%20adopted%20by%20the%20military.%20These%20innovations%20include%3A,-General%20Atomics%20MQ

Provide a proper f**king link. I'm not opening that. And you didn't f**king read or understand my response.

Where did the f**k did I say the military is not adopting innovative technologies? What I said, Baldrick, is the military struggle to implement maintanance and repairs for new technologies. Clearly, there isn't time to develop a full In Service Support Package, so reliance on contractors for maintenance.

7 hours ago, flexomike said:

You want to keep on bashing Trump, your choice but as an x- military person I find your anti military bashing totally disturbing.

Did you do a career? Attend a war college and know the things Trump doesn't? I did, and I can only surmise that he's ignoring his military advisors, with of course idiot Hegseth probably preventing accurate military assessments from reaching Trump. I can only surmise that the recent firing of the Army Chief of Staff -- one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- was due to him having the balls to fall on his sword and protest the war's continuation, and its recent illegal bombing of a civilian bridge. Should Trump expand this illegal bombing of civilian infrastructure (and increase the quagmire), would someone in the operational chain of command say, "Nope, that's an illegal order." Highly unlikely -- but interesting to ponder......

......... and has made me dust off my book "Dereliction of Duty," a meaningful look by General H.R. McMaster on how the generals failed to fall on their swords, when ridiculous orders came down from the President and Sec'y of Defense -- and thus the Vietnam war went on and on.

Can only hope Trump gets tired of where this war is headed; leaves the battlefield without unconditional surrender; and fires Hegseth, who now believes this war is a 'holy war.' Geez!

25 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Provide a proper f**king link. I'm not opening that. And you didn't f**king read or understand my response.

Where did the f**k did I say the military is not adopting innovative technologies? What I said, Baldrick, is the military struggle to implement maintanance and repairs for new technologies. Clearly, there isn't time to develop a full In Service Support Package, so reliance on contractors for maintenance.

I do so much like your kindly and insulting responses, especially when you admit you have not even bothered to open and read the link I posted.

What an ignoramus you are if you ever expect a supporting comment from me, or other rational posters, again!

PS; Thank you for comparing me to one of the UK's finest comedy actors!

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

I do so much like your kindly and insulting responses, especially when you admit you have not even bothered to open and read the link I posted.

What an ignoramus you are if you ever expect a supporting comment from me, or other rational posters, again!

PS; Thank you for comparing me to one of the UK's finest comedy actors!

Provide a proper link. You provided a link that could have been to hard porn or a virus, it looked scrambled. I'm not bothering to open porn sent by you. You could have also provided a precis of the link, but you couldn't be <deleted> arsed, could you?

You posted a falsehood about me. You suggested I stated that the defence industry wasn't innovative.

I stated;

Western weaponry is very effective and very complex, and when push comes to shove, the innovation in the industry when under pressure is awesome. The military sets the requirements, the industry meets the requirement. The military can't absorb the pace of innovation, and where that suffers is In Service Support.

To which you responded:

Not always true!

The Defence Industry can be very innovative and propose systems/technology to the Military!

Right, so either you can't read, or you are trying to suggest I stated something I never wrote. Which is it? If the latter, why are you posting lies about me? I don't know you from Adam.

If I was to look at your reply from the eyes of a child, I might think maybe the Scottish Bloke was thinking the Defence Industry spends all day, investing millions into cool new ideas which they then go and offer around. Nope, that's not how it works.

Companies do not have that sort of money to fritter away. That's shareholder money.

Governments pay for all the development, called programmes. Typically they will pay for competing programmes, one of which comes off (it works) and the other or others are binned, irrespective how much has been sunk into it. Sometimes, the end users set a requirement that no one can meet, they spend the money, and then go away with nothing.

I don't expect anything from you. Why should I? You're a stranger. Add me to your blocked list, I don't really care.

Baldrick is a character, not an actor. Tony Robinson is the actor. I was not comparing you to him, but I was comparing you to the simpleton character he played.

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

Did you do a career? Attend a war college and know the things Trump doesn't? I did, and I can only surmise that he's ignoring his military advisors, with of course idiot Hegseth probably preventing accurate military assessments from reaching Trump. I can only surmise that the recent firing of the Army Chief of Staff -- one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- was due to him having the balls to fall on his sword and protest the war's continuation, and its recent illegal bombing of a civilian bridge. Should Trump expand this illegal bombing of civilian infrastructure (and increase the quagmire), would someone in the operational chain of command say, "Nope, that's an illegal order." Highly unlikely -- but interesting to ponder......

......... and has made me dust off my book "Dereliction of Duty," a meaningful look by General H.R. McMaster on how the generals failed to fall on their swords, when ridiculous orders came down from the President and Sec'y of Defense -- and thus the Vietnam war went on and on.

Can only hope Trump gets tired of where this war is headed; leaves the battlefield without unconditional surrender; and fires Hegseth, who now believes this war is a 'holy war.' Geez!

What happens is that Generals won't follow an illegal order, but they will suggest alternatives that they consider legal.

General John Hyten was head of US Strategic Command (in charge of the nukes) and was asked about this in 2017:

While Senators and expert witnesses agree the president has full authority to defend the nation, commentators have pointed out that because there is no all-encompassing definition of "imminent attack", the president is not given an entirely free hand.

"I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Gen Hyten said.

"And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say: 'Mr President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works.

"It's not that complicated," Gen Hyten added.

Some satire

https://youtu.be/h8H0_GCT1bQ?si=Hj0JcOfcta8BiHGD

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The missing crew member has (reportedly) been rescued.

I certainly hope that's the case, but I'm skeptical of anything that comes out of this Administration and the Pentagon these days. Knowing Trump this could just be another bald-faced lie. Of course if this guy is outed by the Iranians, and paraded on TV, that would be another huge omelet on Don's very ugly face.

Well done - you've managed to turn a positive outcome into a yet another Trump bash - your bias knows know bounds and removes pretty much any credibility of any opinions you attempt to present...

5 hours ago, NanLaew said:

That's the commoditization of human life. The tankers aren't some sort of autonomous vessel without a crew.

I worked on a project in Nigeria when a nearby pipeline was blown up by "rebels". When force majeure was called on our contract and we evacuated the country, it wasn't because the project's insurers were worried about the loss of production or equipment, it was due to the elevated potential of kidnapping, injury or death of the expats on site.

Those same types of threats didn’t stop shipping transiting the Gulf of Aden - vessels continued to move despite sustained piracy risk, armed escorts, and real incidents of hijacking.

Likewise, oil drilling, production and refining across the GCC haven’t shut down every time there’s been a credible threat to infrastructure and have not shut down through this conflict.

Even after events like the Abqaiq–Khurais attack, operations were restored quickly and the industry carried on.

Elevated risk to shipping is nothing new, and it’s something operators and charterers constantly weigh up - routing, speed, security measures, crew risk, all of it. The industry doesn’t just stop because things get uncomfortable.

What actually changes behaviour at scale is the insurance position. When war-risk premiums spike to uneconomic levels, or cover is restricted or withdrawn altogether - whether explicitly or effectively through force majeure-type clauses - ships don’t move. Not because crews suddenly matter less or more than before, but because the voyage is no longer commercially or legally viable.

That’s the key point - risk alone rarely stops trade. The inability to insure it does.