Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

US/Israel conduct airstrikes on Iran again

1393394396398399427

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,531 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    It's oil.

    Everything the US does in the middle east is about oil in some form or another.

    And this won't be the last oil war in our lifetimes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    He won't break up the NATO alliance Trump can only have America leave it. This would be a strategic mistake though leaving a military alliance the USA are not part of, right next door to them. They would become the new Russia.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 266 ✭✭rayman10


    What's the point in taking a few islands other than to make yourself a target?

    It won't get the straits reopened.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭eeepaulo


    is it likely iran are leaders in ultra high performance concrete?

    i been reading about UHPC in investing blogs for a while now. Also reading online related to this war but i havent a clue what is true or not.

    Does that stop the biggest US bombs?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,619 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It's very difficult to see how a ground invasion by the US could result in 'success' and end up opening the Strait of Hormuz. It would be a hugely risky endeavour and with the potential to go badly wrong. The Iranians are no mugs - they are clever and resourceful and seem a real match for the US and Israel.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Yes, but everyone in charge in the political sphere is an absolute moron.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,531 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Perhaps.

    But they're not shifting thousands of marines and airborne troops out to the middle east for nothing.

    I think there might be an attempt to take Kharg island, or at least there's some semblance of a plan to do so. Up to 90% of Iranian crude is shipped from there. Oil is the US goal in the war. Everything else is just bollocks talk.

    How any invasion or landing on Iranian soil plays out in reality remains to be seen though. Iran may have a large army to draw on in terms of numbers, but the US have air and sea superiority and the general quality of their troops/equipment would be better too.

    Although I wouldn't put it past the Iranians to do a "scorched earth" on Kharg rather than let it fall into American hands.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,821 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭rogber


    The same China who is a close Russian ally and actively supports it in the war against Ukraine? No thanks. They have long-term plans too and a transition to European democratic values certainly isn't part of it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭brickster69


    Smelters in two of the worlds largest Aluminium plants Aluminium Bahrain (Alba) and Emirates ⁠Global ⁠Aluminium (EGA) were attacked by missiles in the last two days, following attacks by Israel on a couple of Iran's large steelworks.

    Most of what they produced lately will not of been exported due to shipping closures, but this will likely take a good while to get operational again and Aluminium has been going up a lot due to a global deficit of 600Kt pre conflict.

    The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters. — Antonio Gramsci



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,173 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    I don't know enough about the performance of UHPC to make a call as to whether it's effective.
    That said, you only need look at the performance of 1940s era U-Boat pens in France versus the TallBoy bomb to see what reinforced concrete and airgaps were capable of 80yrs ago.

    Dispersal of surviving leadership, use of wired communication systems and runners rather radio and ensuring that where possible, deep buried and survivable structures are used to house command points all play a role in survivability.

    The Iranians have been preparing for what the Mullahs see as existential threat for decades.
    From the Iran-Iraq war onwards, they have placed value on hardening their leadership and retaliation structures.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 978 ✭✭✭batman75


    From a U.S. and Israeli perspective this war they started against Iran on the 28th of February was truly idiotic. Trump clearly thought a shock and awe bombing campaign which took the life of the Supreme Leader would cause regime collapse.

    The nuclear threat was a red herring especially after Trump triumphantly declared back in June 2025 they had destroyed Iran's nuclear sites. Bibi has been itching for the U.S. to join Israel in attacking Iran. His greater goal aside from regime change was to see Iran Balkanised. A Balkanised Iran was probably the last obstacle to a greater Israel removed. I'm surprised given the hits Israel took in June that Bibi had Israel get back into the ring with Iran. Stupid doesn't cover it.

    Regime change has never happened before via a bombing campaign. Why would it happen now. You need boots on the ground. Iran's terrain is not invader friendly like Iraq. Iran is massive with a population of 93 million. In every which way Israel and the U.S. are losing.

    1. 13 U.S. military bases across the middle east badly damaged plus billions of dollars of infrastructure gone unlikely to ever be reinstated.
    2. Iran has not wilted under the combined bombing by Israel and the U.S. In fact as a nation they have come together to defend the motherland and get behind their government. It has made a change of government less likely.
    3. Israel has expended it's defensive capabilities and is being hit at will by Iran. It's suffering catastrophic infrastructural damage which is estimated will take a decade to reinstate.
    4. It is Israelis who are rising up against their government looking for change. Irony of ironies.
    5. Israelis are leaving the country. It is no longer deemed a safe place for Jews which was the whole concept behind the founding of the country in 1948.
    6. Israel stupidly looked to invade Lebanon again and are having their behind handed to them by Hezbollah.
    7. U.S. has had to lift sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil.
    8. The war has given Iran the confidence to start charging for safe passage through the straits of hormuz something not in place pre war.
    9. Oil and LNG production has been hit in the gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE pushing up the price of oil. Also real danger of fertiliser shortage which will affect food supplies.
    10. A ground invasion of Israel by either or a combination of Hezbollah and the Houthis could likely end the country as an entity. The IDF is deemed to be on the verge of collapse.
    11. Any talk of taking Kharg Island or any other island in the strait of Hormuz is bonkers and is military suicide for the U.S.
    12. A ground invasion of the Iranian mainland to force regime change would require millions of American troops and that is just not feasible logistically.

    Their is no doubt that Iran is being hit hard and suffering massive infrastructural and economic damage. It's also taking casualties on a scale greater than Israel due to indiscriminate bombings. The longer Iran holds out the more of a fix Trump will be in via escalating economic costs. The greater the chance of Israel collapsing as a society.

    Trumps 15 point plan to end the war is not something the Iranians will entertain. Their points for ending the war will be more amenable to Trump the higher the economic cost of the war escalates. Hard to see Bibi surviving politically. Given how reviled Israel is around the world hard to see how they recover economically. Can or will America foot the bill to rebuild Israel?

    For us here in Ireland their is a looming danger of recession the longer oil shortages persist and the price continues to climb.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,832 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    American troops arrive at the seemingly deserted main storage facility on Kharg

    e09407c9-6793-44db-89ce-82c1dcbdb483_text.gif this-is-still-and-will-probably-always-be-the-greatest-gif-v0-xptnqvmd0hjf1.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,619 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Kharg Island would indeed seem to be the potential target for Trump. But anything involving ground troops and face-to-face fighting would be very risky for the US - they could end up taking lots of wounded and fatalities, depending on how resourceful the Iranian defenders are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭rogber


    I don't think Iran are anywhere close to a real match for Israel and US, it's more, to quote a phrase I saw on BBC, "They're playing a weak hand well". But we'll see how long that lasts. Militarily the US and Israel can crush them and that may yet make the difference, depending on how much economic pain the US and world is prepared to accept



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭thomil


    Read the post I linked. These islands bracket the main shipping lane into and out of the Strait of Hormuz and all have bases of the IRGC naval branch on them, as I outlined in that linked post. From these bases, it's a relatively short run to the main shipping lanes, which is important for the IRGC naval arm, since the vast number of their assets has a limited range. Abu Musa in particular is in a position to not only threaten ship traffic into and out of the Gulf but also the approaches to the major UAE ports, something born out by the reported positions of attacks, as seen in this map by the BBC

    Untitled Image

    The biggest cluster of attacks is on the Persian Gulf end of the Strait, all within close proximity of either the Abu Musa group or Qeshm, the large island off of the Iranian mainland.

    Removing these islands and bases would force the IRGC back to its mainland bases, which are limited in number. This increases the distance that fast attack craft have to travel to get to their targets, making it easier for US assets to detect and attack them. It's also highly likely that major IRGC bases on the coast, such as their 5th District HQ and dockyard at Bandar Lengeh, have already been targeted. This might not in itself reduce the number of attack craft available, as these can easily be launched from minimal bases, but it drastically reduces maintenance capabilities.

    Securing those islands would give the US a base from which they themselves can base their own small naval assets and, more importantly, three of the four islands have airfields that can be used for UCAV and helicopter operations, effectively turning the table on Iran. The territorial dispute over some of the islands in the Abu Musa group could potentially be used to give the US intervention an appearance of legitimacy. It would be so transparent that even Stevie Wonder could see through it, but it would fit in with current Pentagon thinking.

    Also, just to make things abundantly clear: The US does not have the manpower for any major incursion on the Iranian mainland! Even if the rapid deployment elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, as well as the full 31st and 11th MEUs are brought together, we're looking at a force of 8000 troops at most. That's nothing for a country the size of Iran, especially given that there are very few areas along the coast that are far enough away from any mountains to develop a proper beachhead and logistics base. Any landing would simply be a waste of troops without any real military benefit.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,832 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    My guess is they would give up the island without a serious fight but immediately open up with missiles & drones once the first Americans come ashore there?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 13,601 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    The socioeconomic fallout from this war might warrant a thread of its own. If our Houthi friends manage to close the Red Sea transit route, we could really be looking at a global catastrophe.

    The commodities affected would not just be oil and gas, but also things like fertilisers and helium.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭.Donegal.


    But then their small size makes the US soldiers easy targets as they’re sitting ducks. From what I’ve read, if the US takes an island, the majority of deaths would come from holding said island rather than taking it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,851 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Have you been counting the amount of strategic mistakes he has made in the past 15 months? You don't think he has been angling for it since he got back in. To me it's obvious how he will sell this to the US and it's obvious to me it's something he will do. NATO without the US is pointless. It will need to be called something else and resourced accordingly.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 13,601 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    The situation in Lebanon might also warrant its own thread.

    @clashreport

    Netanyahu: I have instructed to expand the existing "security buffer zone" in Lebanon.

    😯



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,098 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Some of the more zealot-typ Iranian troops could pull a Mt. Suribachi on it and dig in deep. The Iranians are willing to lose all the battles but win the war by surviving. We'll see how fanatical they are or if, like the Iraqis during Desert Storm, they surrender in large numbers at the first opportunity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 169 ✭✭Firstsub




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭thomil


    I’m not sure if I buy that argument. Any landing force would be subject to counterattack no matter where they land. The small size of the islands, with the exception of Qeshm, their small garrison size and the fact that at least three of the islands do not have any civilian population, vastly reduces the risk of any ground-based counterattacks. That’s also why I’m sceptical about an assault on Kharg. The island is not only small, but almost completely built up and has a significant civilian population. The US would need to allocate significant forces to secure the island and keep the local population under control, something that is not the case with the Abu Musa islands.

    Any attack there will have to either come by sea, or air. The IRGC’s naval assets are heavily geared towards naval Guerilla warfare, with very limited amphibious capability, which only leaves air attack, which in turn means Shahed drones and ballistic missiles, as it appears that both Iran’s regular air force and the IRGC’s air assets have been effectively taken out. The US also have air superiority over the region, meaning forces on the ground can call in air support if needed, something that Iran doesn’t appear to be capable of anymore.

    These are known threats. Moreover, once those islands are secured, the US will likely feel more comfortable in sending an Arleigh Burke DDG or LCS in, which has the necessary radar systems, weapons and, most importantly, point defence systems to attack those systems.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,851 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    What does 'crushing them' actually look like?

    To me that term is something you'd hear Pete Hegseth say. A really alpha male term that means nothing.

    The pain that the middle eastern nations are currently feeling and the indirect pain the rest of the world is feeling has only really just started. I don't think the the global economy can take much particularly so close to COVID and the Ukraine Russian conflict.. And ultimately you'd have to ask how much can Iran take, a country operating under sanctions for decades who have been preparing for this to some extent for the same amount of time.

    So again, what does crushing look like?

    At this stage there's no real reason for Iran to go back to the negotiating table. Last two times that's happened they've gotten bombed the crap outta.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,779 ✭✭✭amandstu


    But they're not shifting thousands of marines and airborne troops out to the middle east for nothing

    If it is done at Trump's insistence contrary to military advice then what are the odds it is being done for no other purpose than to boost his ego?

    Or is it just so that he can have as many options to hand ? (aka flying by the seat of his shithole pants)

    If the c*.t uses(or threatens) a n-bomb is Ukraine next in line?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 551 ✭✭✭Anois_


    Is this real. Who is talking to a bunch of junior infants. I remember a few months ago on Facebook an American thought Trump was great the way he talks maybe he also has a low IQ.

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eaJoFcuaCDM



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,098 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    I can't believe the Iranians could start a laundry fire like that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    NATO would be very much diminished if USA left, but i have now read it would require Congress and the Senate to approve it, so unlikely to happen.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 551 ✭✭✭Anois_


    Reading the biased news spouted by the BBC is the problem there. How you never realised this until now when I'm telling you I have no idea.



Advertisement
Advertisement