Plausible, my only counter is that I am becoming increasingly concerned that the US/Israel/NATO really want to “break the seal” on tactical nukes and Fordow represents the perfect opportunity for this. The West could easily spin that tactical nukes were the only option there, and the number killed would presumably be very low (US could potentially warn when they will bomb and tell Iran to evacuate, even). The real goal here wouldn’t even be the destruction of Fordow but to try and get the world over its fear of tactical nukes. If the US is able to nuke Fordow without much criticism, get ready to see tactical or even low yield conventional nukes in the places where the West decides to turn its imperialist gaze (I could see them going back and dropping tactical nukes on Yemen and Lebanon if they do so on Fordow and face no consequences).
CleverOleg
Hasan was suggesting - mostly facetiously - that this is Trump telegraphing when he will nuke Natanz and Fordow.
Hasan was suggesting - mostly sarcastically - that this is Trump telegraphing when he will nuke Natanz and Fordow.
I’m watching Hasan’s stream and it’s haunting me how similar this is to 2003. Anyone who goes on TV and questions it gets pushback in the form of “well Iran is a danger so are you saying we should ignore dangers to the US?” It’s the EXACT SAME WAY the media approached the question of Saddam and WMDs. “Saddam is a danger to the US, why shouldn’t we take him out”.
For the young-ins, this is so much like 2003 (from the media perspective, not popular views) it’s scary.
I said something to this effect yesterday, but it’s pretty incredible how as soon as there’s a chance of war, the news media gets in line and never questions whether the US should get involved in the first place.
This is good and important. One of the most critical things rhe Resistance can do is make Israelis uncomfortable so they fuck off back to Brooklyn.
This could be his GWB moment
Inshallah
I think the overall conclusions are correct, but people rightly point out that the Iranian side kinda “cheated” by exploiting holes in the way the scenario was set up.
But beyond that, it’s my opinion that it was never really a sincere effort on the part of the US to understand how a war with Iran would go. I think it was just intended to be propaganda - because why would you talk about a war simulation and the results otherwise? Show Iran how this simulation shows how we’ll totally kick their ass.
The idea was to make a war game with a conclusion already determined: the purpose was to show Iran how badly a war with the US would go. But Van Ripper definitely didn’t understand the assignment, and genuinely tried to win it by any means necessary.
But that said, a war with Iran on the ground I do think would go pretty much how the simulation showed, if not even a bigger disaster for the US since missiles have only gotten better at potentially sinking the big ships in the last 23 years.
Afghanistan is a balloon party compared to what Iran would be, I cannot imagine a situation where the US tries to land boots on the ground.
Your posts are so valuable because often, you say things that I don’t want to be true (and I know you don’t either), but the facts point to a particular reality taking shape. We must of course maintain that revolutionary optimism but also not ignore material reality. Thank you for all you contribute.
The memory of 2003 weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living