• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

Demented

Reporter: The president yesterday said that he had achieved regime change in Iran because the regime has changed.

Leavitt: Has it not? Wouldn’t you say there has been a change in the regime?

Reporter: There’s been a change in leadership

Leavitt: Thank you for confirming he is right.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2036868536581447924
 
Helen said:
Usually people who have been defeated militarily tend to understand that they have, since they have been, you know, defeated. Militarily. So if Iran doesn't understand that, it could be because they haven't.
Click to expand...
That's not always the case. There can easily be delays, sometimes significant delays, between when one is militarily defeated and when one realizes this. Hitler's last days in his bunker, where he was issuing commands to troop formations which didn't even exist anymore, is probably one of the most famous examples, but it isn't the only one. It's especially easy for this to happen when communication channels have been degraded, so that commanders don't have a clear view of what has happened to their forces. And we've been actively degrading Iran's military communications.

Note that I'm not making the argument that Iran has been defeated. My claim is much more limited: the fact that Iran hasn't acknowledged defeat isn't really evidence that it hasn't been. That evaluation must be performed independently of Iran's own assessment.
 
it's very much a question of what are your victory conditions.
So far, the US, having the safety of the Gulf States and the free movement through the Strait of Hormoz as its goal can be said to have been defeated.
 
Another good example is the multigenerational campaign to gaslight the world into thinking the Palestinians haven't quite been defeated yet, and should keep on fighting the good fight.
 
dirtywick said:
m.economictimes.com

Iran wants to negotiate with Vance, not Kushner or Witkoff: Report - The Economic Times

Iran has indicated a preference for negotiating with US Vice President JD Vance. Representatives stated they do not wish to engage with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. This decision stems from a lack of trust following previous negotiation breakdowns. President Trump confirmed Vance, Marco...
m.economictimes.com m.economictimes.com

i don’t think they’ll like vance much either. have they even said thank you?
Click to expand...
I think Vance is seen as not representing Israel. Whether fair or not Witkoff and Kushner are seen as close to Israel. Also they misrepresented (deliberately or not) Iran's offer on nuclear decommissioning. I can understand Iran wanting a different negotiator.
 
Helen said:
Usually people who have been defeated militarily tend to understand that they have, since they have been, you know, defeated. Militarily. So if Iran doesn't understand that, it could be because they haven't.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree but I can't help thinking of a certain speech
"we shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight on the landing grounds,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,"
When you're fighting for your home (however you conceive that) you think differently from someone fighting for orders.
Like the old adage about the leopard and the antelope: one is running for his life, one for his dinner.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Leavitt: "That formal authorization from Congress is not necessary because we're currently in major combat operations in Iran"
Click to expand...

You don't need their permission because you started something so minor it only counts as "major combat operations". How does that work, please?

Or are you saying "it's easier to ask forgiveness later than to get permission first"? I guess technically that's true if you have no intention whatsoever of asking for forgiveness.

Also, what combat? I thought you had won. You're just waiting for the Iranians to realise they have no shots left in their locker. Right? So... what combat?
 
Ziggurat said:
Apparently, you didn't understand that my statement "In all seriousness" indicated that what I said prior to that wasn't serious, only what followed after was.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
I made a joke. Apparently some people are incapable of recognizing that. Sad.
Click to expand...
Steve said:
Attempts at jokes by Trump supporters are just as bizarre as their "serious" statements.. No one recognizes them as such.
Click to expand...
Untrue. To give just one example, I recognized that much of what @Ziggurat wrote was a joke, and was happy to see him confirm my interpretation of that and his many other jokes.
 
Helen said:
Usually people who have been defeated militarily tend to understand that they have, since they have been, you know, defeated. Militarily. So if Iran doesn't understand that, it could be because they haven't.
Click to expand...

Well, quite. If they have been entirely defeated, it does not matter whether they acknowledge it or not. If they are still shooting back, QED they are not yet defeated, and the ball is rather in the would-be victor's court.
 
Ziggurat said:
And that makes a difference... why?

Yes.

Which proxy militia groups are we currently funding? Who are they attacking? Or are you just talking about cold war era stuff?
Click to expand...
Kurdish groups, anti- Syrian (Assad) groups, anti Iranian terrorist groups. Contras.

Take Afghanistan, there once was a progressive secular communist government, the US funded trained and armed Islamist terrorists to overthrow that government. They were ultimately successful and set up an Islamic government. The terrorists (some) trained funded and armed by the US morphed into Al Qaeda. Move on a few years and US invades / makes war on the Islamist government of Afghanistan that it had paid to be put in pllace. There is now a difference between funding Afghani Islamist terrorists, and sending in US boots on the ground. Ultimately the US is unsuccessful, the Taliban successfully defeat and expel US forces from afghanistan and set up an even more extremist Islamic government. As we see in Vietnam communist governments aren't necessarily the worst option. Perhaps if the US had just left things alone a secular modernising government in Afghanistan would have been a better option than the many years of warfare and consequent Islamist government and poverty induced by US sanctions that has happened?

Take Syria, the US funded armed anti-Assad Islamist terrorists, the arms 'leaked' and ISIS resulted. A devastating war ensued across Syria, Iraq.

Funding and supporting military coups against democratically elected governments is a US speciality, especially in South America (and of course in Iran).
 
We've won because they've lost.

Nehls: We haven’t won in Iran yet…

PabloReports: You don’t normally disagree with the president. He said that we won.

Nehls: Maybe it’s being taken out of context. We’ve won because they’ve lost, but we need to continue to keep winning and them to keep losing. That’s what he meant.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2036891120819724800
 
Helen said:
Usually people who have been defeated militarily tend to understand that they have, since they have been, you know, defeated. Militarily. So if Iran doesn't understand that, it could be because they haven't.
Click to expand...
I think you need to make the concepts a bit more simple to get through to the MAGA cult
 
Andy_Ross said:
Nehls: Maybe it’s being taken out of context. We’ve won because they’ve lost, but we need to continue to keep winning and them to keep losing. That’s what he meant.
Click to expand...
"The missile knows where it is, because the missile knows where it isn't..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom