Us and Israel attack Iranian regime

[Nicefella]

I quoted the law, nothing more. Rob simply misread the known facts and made a categorical claim that doesn’t hold up. That’s the only point I addressed. War is hell, and innocents die; to expect otherwise is to mistake tragedy for criminality and confuse the brutal reality of war with a simplistic moral fable. The law, codified in instruments like the Geneva Conventions, recognizes that distinction, which is precisely why accusations of war crimes require evidence and legal thresholds, not just indignation. Calling something a war crime doesn’t make it one. It requires proof of intent, military context, and legal analysis, none of which were offered, only asserted.

I have no problem with your doctrinal assertions. Just that no one seems to see the big fucking gorilla in the room that there was no military op attached to that girls school. And the Israelis can get all the Ben Shapiros in the world to dance and kick up dust but even the MAGAs are making strange bedfellows with the libs on this one.


Bottom Line - this time the US and Israelis really fucked their PR game so hard that they will need an entirely new lobbyist acronym game to get their shit together.

 

[Rightguide]

So "limited" is which divisions.

Got it.


How many is the max acceptable limit for you?

I said in another post that there were likely already boots on the ground when this operation began—whatever was required to find, fix, and assess targets and other military objectives. That’s standard practice in modern operations.

Now that Donald Trump has moved to safeguard Iran’s oil terminals on Kharg Island as part of a broader effort to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for international shipping, it’s hardly unreasonable to expect that some number of combat troops could be used to secure those facilities. Protecting critical energy infrastructure in that location would be entirely consistent with the strategic objective of ensuring safe passage through one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints.

Is it based on number of troops or duration of deployment?

The size of the force being considered is almost certainly not intended for a long-term deployment, a Marine Expeditionary Unit, is not an occupation force. A MEU’s logistical lifeline is tethered to the amphibious ships that brought it, and those ships have finite capacity to sustain extended combat operations ashore. Those same vessels would also be supporting any accompanying airborne elements, which further suggests a smaller force with a limited duration on the ground rather than a prolonged presence. There is, however, a runway on Kharg Island, which could provide some additional flexibility for resupply or air support if needed.

What happens if the regime turns back to massacre of its citizens? What happens when they pull more weapons from underground to attack neighbors in the region?

I don't know.

 

[ll74]

I said in another post that there were likely already boots on the ground when this operation began—whatever was required to find, fix, and assess targets and other military objectives. That’s standard practice in modern operations.

Now that Donald Trump has moved to safeguard Iran’s oil terminals on Kharg Island as part of a broader effort to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for international shipping, it’s hardly unreasonable to expect that some number of combat troops could be used to secure those facilities. Protecting critical energy infrastructure in that location would be entirely consistent with the strategic objective of ensuring safe passage through one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints.

The size of the force being considered is almost certainly not intended for a long-term deployment, a Marine Expeditionary Unit, is not an occupation force. A MEU’s logistical lifeline is tethered to the amphibious ships that brought it, and those ships have finite capacity to sustain extended combat operations ashore. Those same vessels would also be supporting any accompanying airborne elements, which further suggests a smaller force with a limited duration on the ground rather than a prolonged presence. There is, however, a runway on Kharg Island, which could provide some additional flexibility for resupply or air support if needed.

Ok, so limited is based on the type of troops and is not any indication of duration other than "prolonged presence" which also is not definitive of duration

I don't know.

Ok, so the bottom line is that you believe there are boots on the ground and you have no idea how long they will be there, but you believe it's not "prolonged" which could mean 5-10 years or could also mean 6-12 months depending on what happens next.

Totally apt analysis aligned with our current administration's explanation.

 

[Rightguide]

I have no problem with your doctrinal assertions. Just that no one seems to see the big fucking gorilla in the room that there was no military op attached to that girls school. And the Israelis can get all the Ben Shapiros in the world to dance and kick up dust but even the MAGAs are making strange bedfellows with the libs on this one.


Bottom Line - this time the US and Israelis really fucked their PR game so hard that they will need an entirely new lobbyist acronym game to get their shit together.

I’m not arguing PR, and I’m certainly not arguing that war is tidy. My point was strictly doctrinal: how militaries identify, assess, and strike targets. Whether a particular site had military relevance is a factual question, not something settled by rhetoric or by who happens to agree with whom politically. The claim that there was “no military operation attached to that school” is a conclusion that requires evidence. In modern conflicts, especially in dense urban areas, the problem of dual-use locations or concealed military activity is unfortunately common. That doesn’t automatically justify a strike, but neither does it make the opposite claim self-evident. These are the same barbaric people who slaughter their own people and put their military headquarters in hospitals, as we saw in Gaza.

As for the PR angle, public perception and battlefield reality rarely move in sync. Governments lose the information war all the time, even when the underlying military decision followed standard rules of engagement. PR success or failure isn’t proof of legality or illegality; it just tells you who controlled the narrative that week. If someone wants to argue a law-of-war violation, then the discussion has to move past slogans and into evidence: target intelligence, intent, proportionality, and the operational context. Without that, it’s just politics dressed up as certainty.

 

[LLCox]

This is what happens when you have a real estate developer that believes he is Genghis Khan. You beat him with his own weapon.

 

[Rightguide]

Ok, so limited is based on the type of troops and is not any indication of duration other than "prolonged presence" which also is not definitive of duration


Ok, so the bottom line is that you believe there are boots on the ground and you have no idea how long they will be there, but you believe it's not "prolonged" which could mean 5-10 years or could also mean 6-12 months depending on what happens next.

When it comes to the MEU we're talking a 15-day combat duration without resupply. I don't know what the operational plan is, but if it is going to be more than a couple of weeks, they will need to be resupplied.

Totally apt analysis aligned with our current administration's explanation.

The enemy gets a vote on what really happens.

 

[Rightguide]

The MISSION GOAL keeps changing. Regime change, or what?

The facts on the ground are still in flux, so it’s not surprising that the publicly stated objectives are shifting as the situation develops. That doesn’t necessarily mean the mission keeps changing; it often means the political messaging and operational phases are catching up to events.

 

[Iluv17]

Putting a hurt to Iran .BQQM!

https://wltreport.com/2026/03/14/tr..._source=PTN&utm_medium=mixed&utm_campaign=PTN

 

[DeluxAuto]

I said in another post that there were likely already boots on the ground when this operation began—

There is zero indication of that, liar. What makes you think the failed regime had that foresight when the idiots didn't even inform our allies?

Trump has made you all non critical thinkers.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The facts on the ground are still in flux, so it’s not surprising that the publicly stated objectives are shifting as the situation develops. That doesn’t necessarily mean the mission keeps changing; it often means the political messaging and operational phases are catching up to events.

The "mission" changes depending on which dipshit you ask.

 

[Iluv17]

There is zero indication of that, liar. What makes you think the failed regime had that foresight when the idiots didn't even inform our allies?

Trump has made you all non critical thinkers.

Wrong,like Trump has said a hundred times.." The educated of our society are now the RETARDS of our society! And HE DID THAT! Promises made, PROMISES KEPT!

 

[ll74]

When it comes to the MEU we're talking a 15-day combat duration without resupply. I don't know what the operational plan is, but if it is going to be more than a couple of weeks, they will need to be resupplied.

It's already been three weeks.
So you're already wrong in your analysis.

The enemy gets a vote on what really happens.

Having an objective is probably helpful.

 

[Rightguide]

Here's one suggestion I saw over at the American Thinker. It has a lot of merit and irony as well:

"The Kharg Island gambit is dirt simple. It is the refinery location and shipping hub for 90% of Iran’s petroleum exports. It generates a huge volume of cash, giving Iran hopes of controlling the Middle East and achieving great-power status.

So, we capture Kharg. We keep it under our control with a 100-year lease. We control Iran’s oil sales. All transactions go through banks we control. We take our cut of the sales for “managing” and “protecting” Iran’s property, and we draw on this income until the full cost of the war is repaid to the USA and Israel."

 

[ll74]

Here's one suggestion I saw over at the American Thinker. It has a lot of merit and irony as well:

"The Kharg Island gambit is dirt simple. It is the refinery location and shipping hub for 90% of Iran’s petroleum exports. It generates a huge volume of cash, giving Iran hopes of controlling the Middle East and achieving great-power status.

So, we capture Kharg. We keep it under our control with a 100-year lease. We control Iran’s oil sales. All transactions go through banks we control. We take our cut of the sales for “managing” and “protecting” Iran’s property, and we draw on this income until the full cost of the war is repaid to the USA and Israel."

You're suggesting that our Middle Eastern partners would go along with that strategy.

Interesting

 

[Rightguide]

It's already been three weeks.
So you're already wrong in your analysis.

You're incorrect, my analysis above only concerns the published movement of a Marine MEU from Japan to the Persian Gulf. This was reported yesterday and the day before. I posted the reported movement of the 82nd Airborne Unit a few days ago. The initial public estimates from the Trump administration suggested that Operation Epic Fury would likely last around four weeks, though officials emphasized that the timeline could expand depending on battlefield conditions.

Having an objective is probably helpful.

We see the emerging objective now. Keeping the Strait open and assuring the free flow of oil to the international community.

 

[Rightguide]

You're suggesting that our Middle Eastern partners would go along with that strategy.

Interesting

Why wouldn't they? They've all been attacked by Iran.

 

[ll74]

You're incorrect, my analysis above only concerns the published movement of a Marine MEU from Japan to the Persian Gulf.

Ok, so what date does that start and end?

This was reported yesterday and the day before. I posted the reported movement of the 82nd Airborne Unit a few days ago. The initial public estimates from the Trump administration suggested that Operation Epic Fury would likely last around four weeks, though officials emphasized that the timeline could expand depending on battlefield conditions.

The Department of Defense mentioned September.

We see the emerging objective now. Keeping the Strait open and assuring the free flow of oil to the international community.

So we attacked Iran, which resulted in then blocking the strait, and our objective is to now reverse the issue we caused by attacking them.

Neat.

 

[Iluv17]

Why wouldn't they? They've all been attacked by Iran.

Let these anti American bastards think what they want. They are in for one hell of a shock real soon! Its time to get the mental hospitals up and running, were gonna need lots and.lots of em! NOTHING CAN STOP WHAT COMING! NOTHING

 

[ll74]

Why wouldn't they? They've all been attacked by Iran.

What? You're suggesting that our ME partners would not object to the US completely controlling the Strait because of Iran attacking them?
Does your brain work like this?

 

[ll74]

Let these anti American bastards think what they want. They are in for one hell of a shock real soon! Its time to get the mental hospitals up and running, were gonna need lots and.lots of em! NOTHING CAN STOP WHAT COMING! NOTHING

What does my question have to do with my position on America?

And what is your suggestion about mental health hospitals have to do with it?

 

[DeluxAuto]

Does blowing up a girls' school and massacring 160 children count as a war crime, Jack?

Which of those do you believe are lies?

There is zero indication of that, liar. What makes you think the failed regime had that foresight when the idiots didn't even inform our allies?

Trump has made you all non critical thinkers.

Poor Reichguide.

 

[Iluv17]

Bye bye Buzzfeed...

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media...tay-in-business-after-dismal-earnings-report/

 

[Bray123]

Stealing Kharg Island and calling it yours achieves nothing when there is no way of getting the oil out of the Gulf.

Creating a '100 year lease' assumes some level of compliance with the Iranian leadership which is optimistic. And forcing all transactions to go through your pet banks is just colonialism. We are not living in 15th Century Europe.

 

[ll74]

Stealing Kharg Island and calling it yours achieves nothing when there is no way of getting the oil out of the Gulf.

Creating a '100 year lease' assumes some level of compliance with the Iranian leadership which is optimistic. And forcing all transactions to go through your pet banks is just colonialism. We are not living in 15th Century Europe.

There's the additional failed acknowledgement that the strait also is responsible for food getting to the middle eastern countries.

Why would they just agree to hand over control to the US?

 

[Rightguide]

Ok, so what date does that start and end?

I told you, the MEU has only been underway for a day or to. It will take a week or so to get to the area of operations

The Department of Defense mentioned September.

Okay. I didn't hear that. I did hear the initial estimate and qualification.

So we attacked Iran, which resulted in then blocking the strait, and our objective is to now reverse the issue we caused by attacking them.

Neat.

They've been killing Americans for almost 50 years. In the 1980s, Iran repeatedly threatened to close the strait in moments of tension (around 2011–12 and again in 2019 over sanctions), but those were diplomatic threats, not actual sustained closures. There have been very limited temporary closures tied to military exercises or live‑fire drills (e.g., brief cuts to navigation for safety reasons), but none were full, long‑term closures. Now they have said they have threatened to mine the Straits, and they have attacked tankers and have tried to sink them in recent days. They have always been a problem for safe travel in the international waters through the Strait.