Iran war is the biggest mistake Trump has ever made and it is perhaps the beginning of the end of American hegemony

I think a military and country can be made stronger by war,

We engage in a conflict, see our capabilities and our enemies capabilities.

By said conflict we are able to restructure our military to be more efficient.

Or to find corruption in the military industry.

I think that the American military power is overestimated. I mean, there is too much money invested in weeapons that it's very easy to corrupt government officials. You'll find dirty things going on in there.

While 'marine' is semantically associated with the sea, the marines' role are not on the sea but on the ground. They use the sea, or even the air, as a path to reach their objective. So, the marines sent to Iran are for taking over a territory (or an Island as it seems to be in this case).

OK, in practice, and especially in the middle east right now, I'll give you that.

This explanation is also for @fauxlaw.

Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure you'd have a better chance of explaining chess to your cat, than explaining anything to Fauxlaw.

If they actually take the Island, this thing will escalate to biblical proportions.

If you want to predict it, watch for Trump to have Dr. Oz diagnose bone spurs in Barron Trump, when that happens, you will know it's gonna blow up big time.

Iran has no troops in the sea

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/irans-navy-taken-beating-during-operation-epic-fury-hk-031526#:~:text=During%20the%20air%20campaign%20against,version%20of%20its%20former%20self.

No, Iran's Navy was manned by troops; you think they have AI? Iran used to have a Navy. Nothing of consequence, now. You must have wokeness in the extreme - utter fantasy, and no mysteryo.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-israel-iran-war-strait-hormuz-updates-03-27-2026.amp

If Trump isn't intent on having a boots on the ground presence in Iran what the fuck are the troops doing there? I want my God damn fertilizer so I can grow my bioengineered patty meat and tomatoes to sell more fucking burgers. Tell those troops to die by the hundreds and destroy civilian infrastructure so I can sell more Big Arches, thereby disappointing more people than just the CEO and fulfilling my earthly mission to make everyone atheist because no loving god would give us the quarterly profits spreadsheet I just received. Meanwhile these troops are playing tiddlywinks and hackey sack. Jesus fucking Christ what do I pay you people for?

Also if the US is so energy independent why the fuck are my truck drivers who deliver the patties complaining about oil prices? Cause not all oil we produce can be refined in domestic refineries? Because oil is a global commodity and US gas companies' trading in said commodity means that domestic and global oil prices fluctuate together? Because transportation costs are rather high for West and East Coast states and so it's actually cheaper to buy international?

Also does Europe need that oil more?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-oil-trade-through-the-strait-of-hormuz-by-country/

It don't seem like it. Graph says there's a one percentage point difference between US and Europe dependence on Strait of Hormuz oil. And China, Saudi Arabia, etc., need it more.

Your "data" from visual capitalist is 5 quarters old, even though the article was published just a few weeks ago.

I don't think in the last year or so, somehow, Europe as a continent decided to get itself more dependent on the Strait to the point that it much eclipses the US. If you think that's the case then what data do you have that I don't on their energy dependence in terms of imports from the Strait?

But the larger point is that the US is not a huge importer of oil, but that does not mean the US is energy independent. If that were true, then why would gas prices be affected domestically? Oil is a global commodity. American firms sell oil in the global market, and will opt to sell to the highest bidder which might be to a firm outside the US. So a higher global price of oil incentivizes them to sell to foreign markets.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-oil-companies-poised-60-213104053.html

In addition, refineries cannot always refine the kind of oil that is produced domestically because of its sulfur content (among other things).

And the transportation costs to get crude from the Midwest to the Eastern and Western states are high.

So what I'm telling you is that the being a "net energy exporter" or having "energy independence" does not hermetically seal the US's oil economy from global shocks. If it did there wouldn't be an increase in gas prices at the pump. Which is just empirically verifiable.

https://www.wtae.com/article/gas-above-four-dollars/70784185

Wow. Hit a nerve? I merely said your data is old. I did not say it was not accurate. I question why your direct source, rather than citing EIA directly, chose to use old, second-hand data. Source3 choice is meaningful, but it was just a question; not an invitation to bleed. Besides, not at all interested in McDonald's, or any other "fast/dead food." I support using fresh food, and I store fresh food in the guise of freeze-dried which we dry and package, ourselves; it just lacks water and its just as good and nutrient-rich as fresh, but will endure for at least 25 years. I can go off grid food and water-wise, and soon also true of energy, and will not miss a beat for close to five years for me and my family, and live at 7500 feet elevation in a mountain forest where I cannot see a single neighbor, though they are there, so the world can go to hell, and we'll survive.

Nah mate no nerve hit. If you got more recent data I'd say show it. I'm not treating my forum posts like academic articles so I don't feel the need to cite the "proper" source in MLA format with all the "fixins". I would remind you that you cited nobody to make your point about Europe being heavily dependent on Strait oil and the US not being dependent at all. The EIA source I got anyway starts in Q1 of 2025, and I don't see any up to date info besides. But by all means, show me if Europe got more dependent on Strait imports. Again, oil is a global commodity so energy independence does not mean that the US is not affected by global oil prices, so this is an unimportant point in the grand scheme of things.

Hey good for you on being able to live off the grid. Id say most people can't. Certainly Mickey D's won't.

I can't imagine that the lesson America's "enemies" will learn is to give up their nuclear capabilities in case of bullshit like this. Seems second strike capabilities are a good idea to develop now that a president intends to kill an entire "civilization" (his words not mine) tonight . I'd say it would be concerning if Iran or, more importantly, it's allies decide it doesn't want Iran to face extinction and should fire back with whatever it has. Hope your off the grid household comes with a bomb shelter. Usually I'd say that bombing back would be draconian, but, well, threatening to kill an entire civilization and it's people is more than draconian.

Maybe we should bomb all civilizations on earth besides ours so we can live without fear of other civilizations bombing back. And then we can bomb the people in this civilization who are threats. And then the people who we trust but justifiably think could kill us if they wanted to.

If you got more recent data I'd say show it. 

Why should I? I'm not the one making oil availability an endangered issue due to Iran's stupidity, or brilliance, depending on your side of the issue. And in a forum environment, I'm not that compelled to cite sources for every comment I make. In debate, yeah, if it's not my own thin king, I'll cite sources, and always have.

And no nukes will be used to eliminate an Iranian civilization. No need. They're already at least one foot into the pool of medieval living, anyway. Iran caused the bullshit in the first place, my friend, nearly 50 years ago. Iran was an ally before the Ayafuckla made his move against us.

"I'm not the one making oil availability an endangered issue due to Iran's stupidity, or brilliance, depending on your side of the issue."

.......

.......

.......

I mean you brought up oil dependence and Europe. If you don't want to cite that's fine. It's just weird you'd care about my cites if you don't even bother.

"And no nukes will be used to eliminate an Iranian civilization. No need. They're already at least one foot into the pool of medieval living, anyway. Iran caused the bullshit in the first place, my friend, nearly 50 years ago. Iran was an ally before the Ayafuckla made his move against us"

The US and Britain launched a coup in the 50s in Iran. Because Mosaddegh's government nationalized the oil industry and sided with the USSR, which as a sovereign nation was their choice. The US and Britain had no claim on their oil reserves. Mosaddegh was democratically elected. The Shah was not. And the Shah was the one who started Iran's nuclear program. The US put the Shah in charge.

I guess we were "friends" in the sense that someone who I launch a coup against is my "friend". Seems like they were right in hindsight given how untrustworthy the US is.

The US and Britain had no claim on their oil reserves

Mosaddegh had no claim on the UK machinery and refineries valued at around 4 to 8 billion dollars in today's currency.

Iran’s view:

“Our oil, our land → we’re taking back control.”

Britain’s view:

“We built and owned that entire operation → you just seized our property.”

Seems like they were right in hindsight given how untrustworthy the US is.

They probs learned from Iran. If Trump or JFK ran the UK 50 years ago, Iran would have been nuked for stealing 8 billion in national assets.

The only fucking reason that Britain had control over Iranian oil to begin with had very much to do with it's colonial history from the early 20th century onward, and on terms that were beneficial really only to Britain. If a country is colonized it ought to resist. With bloodshed if necessary. And if the US did nuke Iran, then it should suffer the consequences: mass killings.

Real men don't cuck when 8 billion is stolen. The bare minimum would have been to bomb all those wells and refineries and pipes into scrap metal and wish the Iranians luck on their sovereign oil extraction.

Oh no 8 billion dollars of not even the US's goods was stolen.

It's just weird you'd care about my cites if you don't even bother.

Why? Because your cite old news. What use is that? And you do not cite the source of that news, but a secondary non-originator of the old news. On those two counts, I doubt the credibility of the news. Is that a crime? Worse, is that even "weird?" I doubt it. What it is is wanting at least credibility. That always makes sense.

And if the US did nuke Iran, then it should suffer the consequences: mass killings. [to Shoresy]

Who said the US will Nuke Iran? We have that capability, sure, but I don't think Trump is an idiot, and I suspect you disagree. But disagree with sensible criticism, at least, or it's as absurd as you accuse Trump of being, and that is weird. Kind of like pulling out your own rug from beneath you. There's a picture.

"Why? Because your cite old news. What use is that? And you do not cite the source of that news, but a secondary non-originator of the old news. On those two counts, I doubt the credibility of the news. Is that a crime? Worse, is that even "weird?" I doubt it. What it is is wanting at least credibility. That always makes sense."

You cited nothing. You made a bare assertion. You don't demonstrate that facticity is important to you.

"Who said the US will Nuke Iran? We have that capability, sure, but I don't think Trump is an idiot, and I suspect you disagree. But disagree with sensible criticism, at least, or it's as absurd as you accuse Trump of being, and that is weird. Kind of like pulling out your own rug from beneath you. There's a picture."

Shoresy said that if JFK ran the presidency 50 years ago they would have nuked Iran. I didn't say my comment in relation to Trump. I said it in relation to Shoresy's desire for Iran to be nuked.

Do I think Trump would? I mean ... I don't think *he* thinks he's too good for that. But that's neither here nor there. The chance of any country dropping a nuke is low.

Shoresy said that if JFK ran the presidency 50 years ago

I said ran UK.

UK is so full of cucks that they forgot how to be real men.

"no guys you don't understand, it's not nuclear genocide when we colonize them, insert ourselves into Iran twice to kill dissidents, and create wildly lopsided terms so we control their oil economy, and then they decide to nationalize their oil"... "What do you mean we've been nuked back?"

The American revolutionaires would probably have revolted for much less. I imagine that Trump's solution would have been much the same if he lived in Iran - cut oneself from a foreign deal with the British and do what he wants with it regardless of promises made.

If you think that "the destruction of civilization" is just the cost of business then I would recommend you become a tech CEO in the US. Similar vibes.

Of course, if you discount the colonial context it seems like highway thievery. But really, Britain losing 8 billion was frankly generous.

Well, Iran and Trump agreed a ceasefire. The peace negotiations are coming about hopefully in a week or so.

I think it's worthless to strike Iran again because there is nothing left to strike, except the basic insfrastructure. With that level of destruction, Iran will be busy rebuilding their country instead of retaking their nuclear project.

Hope Israel comply with the ceasefire, nobody knows what these nazi jews can do.

If you think that "the destruction of civilization" is just the cost of business

No, it's the cost of theivery when non-cucks are in charge. Leopold would take your hands for less.

Genocide is the act of "real men" who are wronged (and were they really)? Well, then I suppose if Iran had the capacity to kill of British people it ought to have. And Algerian ought to have murdered every French person. Nuked em.

And what should happen to your country? Surely your country didn't murder people or steal money... Right?

You know, I think this sort of grievance based politics is actually ok if it means I can kill people I don't like for slights, small and large. Seems like a really good idea, really.

It's always and will be ever this way.

America has enough problems as is to be getting involved in wars across the Middle East and justifying it with a large amount of taxes when we are dealing with numerous issues across the states. This is Israel's fight, and not America's, and we have no reason to even be involved in this conflict.

I do not like Iran by any means. I do not believe in any mono-religious state's right to exist because it will ultimately lead to discrimination, abuse of power, and a superiority complex that will breed extremism. This is for all religions. I think predominance can exist, but state-regulated religion ultimately does more harm than good.

Tax dollars can be used in more comprehensive and responsible ways than fighting a fight that maybe 15% of Americans want. I just think the irony of his campaign being "no more wars" and "lower cost of living" being so wrong.

I think the worst thing is, his incompetency is going to breed a wave of horrible liberal policies in 2028 and a divided senate in 2026 where nothing will be done and it will all unravel. I gave Trump lienancy in 2020 for COVID, because a global pandemic is essentially 80% out of his control and there's no way of knowing the effect of it. This is 100% his doing

(1) Passivity and Isolationism

I am doubtful that passivity and isolationism is a viable path for America.

If we don't involve ourselves in the world, then we are accepting 'whatever our rivals decide upon.

If we don't have a finger on the pulse, a arm on the shoulder, a grip on the neck. Then our rivals have the upper hand in any conflict.

In economy, in allies, in military.

I think we saw a chance gamble in Iran, and we took it.

(2) Strife

I think a degree of strife makes a military strong.

I think this limited conflict has been excellent in informing various people in America of technological changes in war.

(3)Mono-Religious States

. . . I do not think Atheism is without Ism. Without values and beliefs.

I lean towards Tribal loyalty.

I think people with certain ideals and beliefs 'ought seek to establish communities of their own, and establish primacy in their zones.

Though. . . You 'do say predominance. . .

Are predominance and state-regulated is the same in a sense?

Without organization, I do not think it is easy for groups to acquire dominance.

It's why I've never thought too highly of Anarchy or Libertarian Towns in America, unless one only cares about themselves and their lifetime.

And organization, basically 'is government.

. . . Without efforts to turn away people of different values,

Without effort to vitalize one's own tribe, I think it is easy to be overtaken by 'other's Isms.

(4) The War

Well, I can't say I 'wanted us to enter the war.

. . . But the world is always turning.

I worry about a future where nukes are 'far more common among 'all countries.

Perhaps the feared nuclear wars never comes from the 1st world, but the third world.

(5) Liberals

(Redacted)

I meant to respond to this a while back but never got the time. So here is the time

(1) Passivity and Isolationism

I am doubtful that passivity and isolationism is a viable path for America.

If we don't involve ourselves in the world, then we are accepting 'whatever our rivals decide upon.

If we don't have a finger on the pulse, a arm on the shoulder, a grip on the neck. Then our rivals have the upper hand in any conflict.

In economy, in allies, in military.

I think we saw a chance gamble in Iran, and we took it.

The problem I have with this is "our enemies." The enemies we have did not provide much support to the Iranian government. All we are doing is supporting one ally. Nobody in NATO is even supporting this. I don't believe isolationism is the path, but I don't believe is stupid hegemonism that causes our lives at home to get significantly worse. For what specific reason too? The threats that Iran has posed have been the same for 30 years, and nothing has happened.

(2) Strife

I think a degree of strife makes a military strong.

I think this limited conflict has been excellent in informing various people in America of technological changes in war.

(3)Mono-Religious States

. . . I do not think Atheism is without Ism. Without values and beliefs.

I lean towards Tribal loyalty.

I think people with certain ideals and beliefs 'ought seek to establish communities of their own, and establish primacy in their zones.

Though. . . You 'do say predominance. . .

Are predominance and state-regulated is the same in a sense?

Without organization, I do not think it is easy for groups to acquire dominance.

It's why I've never thought too highly of Anarchy or Libertarian Towns in America, unless one only cares about themselves and their lifetime.

And organization, basically 'is government.

. . . Without efforts to turn away people of different values,

Without effort to vitalize one's own tribe, I think it is easy to be overtaken by 'other's Isms.

You can establish tribal loyalties without having to establish a government solely for it. You can also play the card of tribal loyalty impacted in government, which led to the acts of terror committed by the Nazis, the Cambodian government, etc. I think the wording here is correct, state-regulated is more worrisome than perdominance. I also don't think declaring the national religion of a state benefit any country

(4) The War

Well, I can't say I 'wanted us to enter the war.

. . . But the world is always turning.

I worry about a future where nukes are 'far more common among 'all countries.

Perhaps the feared nuclear wars never comes from the 1st world, but the third world.

Like I said, this has been the same scenario that a certain country has claimed for 30+ years. Yet, no evidence of a Nuclear Weapon has ever surfaced. We even bombed the nuclear-based as well. There is a lot more to this

(5) Liberals

(Redacted)

(1) Passivity and Isolationism

I do have a problem sometimes,

Where any way a situation happens,

I just identify what might be a silver lining.

""our enemies." The enemies we have did not provide much support to the Iranian government".  - Vader

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/research/2024/10/cooperation-between-china-iran-north-korea-and-russia-current-and-potential-future-threats-to-america

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/from-drones-to-rocket-fuel-china-and-russia-are-helping-iran-through-supply-chains/

Well, Russia has been a bit busy in Ukraine, so ideal time maybe.

China some say, is arming up, not ready 'yet, so ideal time maybe.

Ideal time for USA to act I mean.

Other than Russia and China, there is the rest of the Middle East to consider,

Iran and proxies have arguably in the past hurt diplomatic agreements between Israel and various Middle East countries.

Iran missiles against nearby Arab countries, may be a boon.

"The threats that Iran has posed have been the same for 30 years, and nothing has happened." - Vader

Just because nothing has happened 'yet, is no reason not to cut down a huge dead tree within crushing distance of a house.

Maybe people have given minor braces to the tree, that it's fall keeps being postponed.

Maybe large limbs have fallen from the tree in the past and broken pieces of the house.

Maybe one fears a storm on the horizon.

Musing

If we of Earth all shared similar goals and values, we could afford to be a lot more peaceful.

And sure we 'do have many shared goals and values,

But we have too many different, and different to such degrees, that I don't see peace as an option.

There 'has to be conflict,

Rest on your laurels, and the enemies get a hand up over you.

Say and work for peace after WW1, that is fine, but one ought be ready for WW2.

 I don't believe isolationism is the path, but I don't believe is stupid hegemonism that causes our lives at home to get significantly worse. For what specific reason too? The threats that Iran has posed have been the same for 30 years, and nothing has happened.

I suppose the only counter to this is asking: "What would happen to American security and its economy if nuclear war erupted in the Middle East?"