hey richard.. i think you are wrong and for the record, you’ve been wrong before..
an eye for an eye leads to more blindness.. while some continue to imagine the worst, there is always another future which isn’t all a dark dead end.. i don’t know how this unfolds but, i think you’re wrong here.. thanks for your posts.. cheers james
Well, as I said in the post: "We'll see." What I wonder is how many of those who are wrong in my opinion will be around to say so if I turn out to be right. I'm not holding my breath.
i am happy to stick around and admit being wrong.. in fact i have been wrong many times before.. it goes with being human..
mt take is this is going to take a long time to unravel and is not going to end quickly, if at all. however i see israels approach here as sealing its own demise, which again, is going to take some time to become more apparent. also although the usa is still very powerful, its star is fading. just like the sun did set on the british empire, it is going to on the usa as well. things take time to unfold. the nato russia conflict is one recent example of this.
Richard I agree with your assessment regarding the upcoming war. Knowing a war is coming one has to prepare materially (armaments, food security etc) as well as have as much as the Global South on its (Iran's) side. Putin knew that the Minsk was a farce long time ago, but he has to prepare to get the Global South (China/India/South Africa etc) on his side. It took him almost good 5 to 6 years to prepare his economy for that upcoming war. Now Iran is a much weaker country but has already has Russia and China and most of the Global South on its side. If a war does come and it will be devastating to the world economy and it is sure recipe to loose friends. To keep these guys on its side (Iran) it shouldn't appear to be the aggressor to the people who will at least not condemn her. Also Russia has supplied some weapon systems and it takes time for Iran to assimilate this new weapon systems. Thanks
Exactly. As I've said over and over, no one wants to be blamed for starting a war.
What people forget is that this doesn't mean those same people won't start a war.
For some reason, almost no one can hold those two thoughts in their head while considering the current events. It's like the supposed human ability to have a short term memory that can hold "7 plus or minus 2" items has shrunk down to 1 when emotions are involved.
This gives me the advantage in analysis because I don't care who dies or how many. The difference between psychopaths like me and ordinary humans is I have no attachment to a "troop" like the rest of the primates do.
But the bottom line: the longer Iran waits to retaliate the worse the situation for them will get. In fact, regardless of whether they wait or not, the worse it's going to get for them. This is what the internal conflict in Iran - and indeed in Russia as well - is all about.
As I say in my article, when someone is coming to kill you, you kill them. You don't dither around trying to be diplomatic. You should have strategy and tactics, but as Richard Marcinko quoted a Chinese general once, "Always treat your enemy as your enemy, because he will invariably treat you that way."
There's virtually no maneuvering room left for Iran or Hezbollah or the rest of the Axis (Anserallah are warriors, they understood this from the get-go.)
It's time to bring the hammer down - for Russia in Ukraine and for the Axis in the Middle East.
"As I say in my article, when someone is coming to kill you, you kill them. You don't dither around trying to be diplomatic. "
You nail it right there. America is always coming to kill people. Like what is wrong with these people in Russia, China, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudis, India, Iran, Europe, Ukraine, the whole middle east and eastern Europe and the central asia?
It certainly seems this way and it is a wonder that more nations are not aware of this and act accordingly. To be fair I have one real awareness of whether they do or not, but simply waiting for the blob to send its tendrils into your society and slowly dissolve seems like an awful fate.
I tends to think about less as a matter of revenge or retribution and more grounded in the use of large scale “grappling” to impose will and protect territory. Just as war is an extension of diplomacy by other means (or in these days a complete lack of diplomacy) the conflicts that are currently hot at the moment are a contest for control and dominance. The RF is not punishing Ukraine as such, but there is a lesson being taught, now with extreme prejudice. No amount of diplomacy would have achieved anything close to what will happen next. Chechnya is an example.
As the author said re: Middle East conflict, it’s inevitable that the moves we are seeing get made because there isn’t much of a choice NOT to. It’s either go for it, or give up and go home. Make no mistake, for some of the players they already are home and it’s soon to be a matter of victory or death. When a critical mass of any given population is forced to accept this as a reality ,the game changes.
thanks.. it appears iran has given a response to the april embassy attck in damascus. maybe it is a measured response.. i continue to believe this is going to go on for some length of time.. hezbollah can’t do all that many would likeand appear to be seeking a ground war.. it looks like they may get it..
A ground war plays to Hezbollah's strengths. Apparently, according to Elijah Magnier, Israel has only 18 brigades, or 60-70,000 troops, in the north on the border.
Hezbollah has 60-100,000. This means Israel is attempting to conquer a fortified area with a 1:1 or less ratio. There is zero chance they can do this. They'd need at least a 3:1 advantage and probably a 10:1 advantage.
And that's not counting the estimated 40,000 or more other Axis forces which are massing in Iraq near the Syria-Jordan border. Ansarallah has reportedly infiltrated a brigade of 4,000 troops inside Syria heading for Lebanon or the Golan Heights.
The plan would seem to me that Hezbollah decimates the IDF on the border, then perhaps, as Scott Ritter has suggested, invades Gallilee.
In any event, Hezbollah is holding their main arsenal for later. This is what they did in 2006 - fired about 25% or so of their rockets, engaged on the ground (with only one brigade of 3,000 troops out of an estimated 15-20,000 to defeat the Israeli army), then when Israel quit, they still had 75% of their arsenal intact.
The IDF performed poorly in 2006, and is worn out now. I must conclude that Netanyahu has decided to sacrifice a good part of the Israeli army in order to be able to beg the US to come in and save him.
Hoe he expects the US to do that is beyond me. The US can't deliver enough troops into Lebanon to defeat Hezbollah, let alone Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
The IDF simply does not have the combined arms capability to bring the fight north and most people that matter know this. If they are clever HZB will let them get an “expeditionary foothold” in southern Lebanon and then hack away at them using ATGMs. Also: during chaotic periods all kinds of things can happen, like the shooter incident a few days ago. How many more of those are waiting I wonder….
Richard, I agree with you regarding Iran. To put it simply, Iran must fight back. The US and Israel will not relent. Iran can not backtrack, run or hide. Iran may not win; however, it must show the US and Israel that neither will escape unscathed.
I've often wondered why Iran doesn't threatened to Nuke the major cities in Israel? That will get their attention and cause the leadership determine if it is worth it.
Militarily there is zero advantage to Iran developing nukes. I've said this over and over for years.
A nuclear threat is only credible if 1) you have enough nukes to be a credible existential threat to the opponent, and 2) you have enough capability to deliver that threat via weapons systems (aircraft, subs, etc.)
Iran has neither of those and more importantly, could never develop them before they would be attacked for attempting to do so long before they had enough to be a credible threat. Even one bomb would get Iran nuked by Israel and probably the US.
People sometimes cite North Korea. What they forget is that North Korea has a massive million-man army with enough artillery and missiles to give the US fifty thousand dead soldiers within 90 days of a US war on NK. That's the real deterrent, not NK's nukes. If NK tried to use its nukes, it would be annihilated by one US submarine within 30 minutes.
Not to mention that Iran has repeatedly stated it would never do so for religious reasons. This has a precedent. When Iran was fighting Iraq in the '80s, Iraq used chemical weapons. Some officials in Iran wanted to develop them as well. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against that. When Khameini came to power he also issued a fatwa against nukes. That fatwa has not been rescinded.
Back when Ahmadinejad was President, he explicitly said Iran would never try to compete with Israel's nuclear arsenals, let alone the US' 5-6,000 warheads and delivery systems.
There's a story going around today that Iran just conducted a "nuclear test". I call bullshit on the whole story. It's obviously a ploy to justify an imminent Israeli - and I suspect, US - strike on Iran.
We shall see. Iran may already have nuclear weapons. Also, using a nuke may not be necessary. Iran may have enough conventional weapons to make Israel uninhabitable. Israel's Iron Dome can not prevent ALL of Iran's missiles (Nuclear or conventional) from getting through. We wait and watch together, eh?
Neither is true. Lavrov at the ASEAN meetings just dismissed the notion that Iran is pursuing nukes based on the report that some Iranian parliamentarians said in a letter that Iran should reconsider nukes. He also cited the IAEA who continues to report zero evidence of Iran doing any nuclear weapons work. People forget how invasive the IAEA is in Iran. Iran's program is the most heavily surveilled nuclear energy program in history.
And as I said, one nukes is utterly useless.
Also, as I've pointed out, Iran doesn't have enough ballistic missiles to destroy Israel. Do major damage, yes, including energy sources, water desalination and other things that might cause major civilian problems, but it's unlikely to destroy the Israel military. For that, it requires Hezbollah to go all in. The two of them probably can destroy Israel's military as well as civilian infrastructure.
The only remaining factor is how much US direct involvement in the war against Hezbollah and Iran might alter the outcome. I'm still betting on Israel getting destroyed and the US being driven out of the Middle East - but that is what we'll have to see actually happen before declaring it a certainty.
hey richard.. i think you are wrong and for the record, you’ve been wrong before..
an eye for an eye leads to more blindness.. while some continue to imagine the worst, there is always another future which isn’t all a dark dead end.. i don’t know how this unfolds but, i think you’re wrong here.. thanks for your posts.. cheers james
Well, as I said in the post: "We'll see." What I wonder is how many of those who are wrong in my opinion will be around to say so if I turn out to be right. I'm not holding my breath.
i am happy to stick around and admit being wrong.. in fact i have been wrong many times before.. it goes with being human..
mt take is this is going to take a long time to unravel and is not going to end quickly, if at all. however i see israels approach here as sealing its own demise, which again, is going to take some time to become more apparent. also although the usa is still very powerful, its star is fading. just like the sun did set on the british empire, it is going to on the usa as well. things take time to unfold. the nato russia conflict is one recent example of this.
Richard I agree with your assessment regarding the upcoming war. Knowing a war is coming one has to prepare materially (armaments, food security etc) as well as have as much as the Global South on its (Iran's) side. Putin knew that the Minsk was a farce long time ago, but he has to prepare to get the Global South (China/India/South Africa etc) on his side. It took him almost good 5 to 6 years to prepare his economy for that upcoming war. Now Iran is a much weaker country but has already has Russia and China and most of the Global South on its side. If a war does come and it will be devastating to the world economy and it is sure recipe to loose friends. To keep these guys on its side (Iran) it shouldn't appear to be the aggressor to the people who will at least not condemn her. Also Russia has supplied some weapon systems and it takes time for Iran to assimilate this new weapon systems. Thanks
Exactly. As I've said over and over, no one wants to be blamed for starting a war.
What people forget is that this doesn't mean those same people won't start a war.
For some reason, almost no one can hold those two thoughts in their head while considering the current events. It's like the supposed human ability to have a short term memory that can hold "7 plus or minus 2" items has shrunk down to 1 when emotions are involved.
This gives me the advantage in analysis because I don't care who dies or how many. The difference between psychopaths like me and ordinary humans is I have no attachment to a "troop" like the rest of the primates do.
But the bottom line: the longer Iran waits to retaliate the worse the situation for them will get. In fact, regardless of whether they wait or not, the worse it's going to get for them. This is what the internal conflict in Iran - and indeed in Russia as well - is all about.
As I say in my article, when someone is coming to kill you, you kill them. You don't dither around trying to be diplomatic. You should have strategy and tactics, but as Richard Marcinko quoted a Chinese general once, "Always treat your enemy as your enemy, because he will invariably treat you that way."
There's virtually no maneuvering room left for Iran or Hezbollah or the rest of the Axis (Anserallah are warriors, they understood this from the get-go.)
It's time to bring the hammer down - for Russia in Ukraine and for the Axis in the Middle East.
"As I say in my article, when someone is coming to kill you, you kill them. You don't dither around trying to be diplomatic. "
You nail it right there. America is always coming to kill people. Like what is wrong with these people in Russia, China, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudis, India, Iran, Europe, Ukraine, the whole middle east and eastern Europe and the central asia?
It certainly seems this way and it is a wonder that more nations are not aware of this and act accordingly. To be fair I have one real awareness of whether they do or not, but simply waiting for the blob to send its tendrils into your society and slowly dissolve seems like an awful fate.
james and pollyanna are having a happiness party at the al Aqsa mosgue next Saturday.
You are all invited. :)
Yeah? And where is your party at champ?
i am taking the long view here. i am sorry if that confuses some.
I tends to think about less as a matter of revenge or retribution and more grounded in the use of large scale “grappling” to impose will and protect territory. Just as war is an extension of diplomacy by other means (or in these days a complete lack of diplomacy) the conflicts that are currently hot at the moment are a contest for control and dominance. The RF is not punishing Ukraine as such, but there is a lesson being taught, now with extreme prejudice. No amount of diplomacy would have achieved anything close to what will happen next. Chechnya is an example.
As the author said re: Middle East conflict, it’s inevitable that the moves we are seeing get made because there isn’t much of a choice NOT to. It’s either go for it, or give up and go home. Make no mistake, for some of the players they already are home and it’s soon to be a matter of victory or death. When a critical mass of any given population is forced to accept this as a reality ,the game changes.
thanks.. it appears iran has given a response to the april embassy attck in damascus. maybe it is a measured response.. i continue to believe this is going to go on for some length of time.. hezbollah can’t do all that many would likeand appear to be seeking a ground war.. it looks like they may get it..
A ground war plays to Hezbollah's strengths. Apparently, according to Elijah Magnier, Israel has only 18 brigades, or 60-70,000 troops, in the north on the border.
Hezbollah has 60-100,000. This means Israel is attempting to conquer a fortified area with a 1:1 or less ratio. There is zero chance they can do this. They'd need at least a 3:1 advantage and probably a 10:1 advantage.
And that's not counting the estimated 40,000 or more other Axis forces which are massing in Iraq near the Syria-Jordan border. Ansarallah has reportedly infiltrated a brigade of 4,000 troops inside Syria heading for Lebanon or the Golan Heights.
The plan would seem to me that Hezbollah decimates the IDF on the border, then perhaps, as Scott Ritter has suggested, invades Gallilee.
In any event, Hezbollah is holding their main arsenal for later. This is what they did in 2006 - fired about 25% or so of their rockets, engaged on the ground (with only one brigade of 3,000 troops out of an estimated 15-20,000 to defeat the Israeli army), then when Israel quit, they still had 75% of their arsenal intact.
The IDF performed poorly in 2006, and is worn out now. I must conclude that Netanyahu has decided to sacrifice a good part of the Israeli army in order to be able to beg the US to come in and save him.
Hoe he expects the US to do that is beyond me. The US can't deliver enough troops into Lebanon to defeat Hezbollah, let alone Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
The IDF simply does not have the combined arms capability to bring the fight north and most people that matter know this. If they are clever HZB will let them get an “expeditionary foothold” in southern Lebanon and then hack away at them using ATGMs. Also: during chaotic periods all kinds of things can happen, like the shooter incident a few days ago. How many more of those are waiting I wonder….
i agree with you and richard.lthanks.
"Everyone told me I was crazy."
Really? Nah they're crazy. :)
An alternative to Crooke's style and approach
America at a Crossroads: Will the U.S. Empire Adapt or Collapse?
The United States is at War with itself and the world
https://substack.com/home/post/p-149663210
Richard, I agree with you regarding Iran. To put it simply, Iran must fight back. The US and Israel will not relent. Iran can not backtrack, run or hide. Iran may not win; however, it must show the US and Israel that neither will escape unscathed.
I've often wondered why Iran doesn't threatened to Nuke the major cities in Israel? That will get their attention and cause the leadership determine if it is worth it.
Militarily there is zero advantage to Iran developing nukes. I've said this over and over for years.
A nuclear threat is only credible if 1) you have enough nukes to be a credible existential threat to the opponent, and 2) you have enough capability to deliver that threat via weapons systems (aircraft, subs, etc.)
Iran has neither of those and more importantly, could never develop them before they would be attacked for attempting to do so long before they had enough to be a credible threat. Even one bomb would get Iran nuked by Israel and probably the US.
People sometimes cite North Korea. What they forget is that North Korea has a massive million-man army with enough artillery and missiles to give the US fifty thousand dead soldiers within 90 days of a US war on NK. That's the real deterrent, not NK's nukes. If NK tried to use its nukes, it would be annihilated by one US submarine within 30 minutes.
Not to mention that Iran has repeatedly stated it would never do so for religious reasons. This has a precedent. When Iran was fighting Iraq in the '80s, Iraq used chemical weapons. Some officials in Iran wanted to develop them as well. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against that. When Khameini came to power he also issued a fatwa against nukes. That fatwa has not been rescinded.
Back when Ahmadinejad was President, he explicitly said Iran would never try to compete with Israel's nuclear arsenals, let alone the US' 5-6,000 warheads and delivery systems.
There's a story going around today that Iran just conducted a "nuclear test". I call bullshit on the whole story. It's obviously a ploy to justify an imminent Israeli - and I suspect, US - strike on Iran.
We shall see. Iran may already have nuclear weapons. Also, using a nuke may not be necessary. Iran may have enough conventional weapons to make Israel uninhabitable. Israel's Iron Dome can not prevent ALL of Iran's missiles (Nuclear or conventional) from getting through. We wait and watch together, eh?
Neither is true. Lavrov at the ASEAN meetings just dismissed the notion that Iran is pursuing nukes based on the report that some Iranian parliamentarians said in a letter that Iran should reconsider nukes. He also cited the IAEA who continues to report zero evidence of Iran doing any nuclear weapons work. People forget how invasive the IAEA is in Iran. Iran's program is the most heavily surveilled nuclear energy program in history.
And as I said, one nukes is utterly useless.
Also, as I've pointed out, Iran doesn't have enough ballistic missiles to destroy Israel. Do major damage, yes, including energy sources, water desalination and other things that might cause major civilian problems, but it's unlikely to destroy the Israel military. For that, it requires Hezbollah to go all in. The two of them probably can destroy Israel's military as well as civilian infrastructure.
The only remaining factor is how much US direct involvement in the war against Hezbollah and Iran might alter the outcome. I'm still betting on Israel getting destroyed and the US being driven out of the Middle East - but that is what we'll have to see actually happen before declaring it a certainty.