Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.

[Peasant]

I feel like most of the reddit bots are muslims or come from iran. I have zero proof.

Right, I forgot that a solid majority of internet users today are seething third-worlders. Really explains a lot of what you see online.

 

[3-2-1836]

I feel like most of the reddit bots are muslims or come from iran. I have zero proof.

The jannies at Twitch are Muslims in Egypt that hate Israel and even then only the San Francisco admin team can actually ban Hasan

 

[Scout Trooper]

Is Ford heading for the Gulf(Either Oman or Persian)? Couldn't they run operations from the Mediterranean? Especially with all those tankers currently in route?

They could, but why would you want too? its needlessly complicated when you can just park the Ford south of Iran in the Gulf of Oman and do operations without tankers. Besides, the Tankers will be needed to bring in the real heavy hitters, which are the B-1, B-2, and B-52's.

There is also the unstated reason for why the USA sends two carriers for these sorts of things. On top of two being better then one, a big reason why you want two is if one gets sunk, the mission isn't an automatic failure. Sure, the odds of any US Carrier getting sunk is low, but its not so low as to be impossible. Iran "could" get lucky, and you don't want to leave the enemy the option of winning on a natural 20 roll of the dice with a Shahed swarm.

I keep seeing this ground-based fighter and tanker vs. aircraft carrier dichotomy and want to point out that these are not exclusive forces.

Just as ground-based aircraft will take off with a minimal amount of fuel to accommodate larger mission/weapon stores, aircraft carrier-based aircraft often have a refueling requirement. The Super Hornet can sometimes be required to serve as a refueler for carrier-launched fighters but my understanding is that refueling from a dedicated air tanker is much preferred to buddy refueling.

Additionally, re-tasking or length of missions can require carrier-based aircraft to return to air tankers multiple times before continuing.

 

[Knee Heel No Womb]

Ive been reviewing all the open source intel and reaching out to my sources and all signs point to this weekend.

I've been consulting with the voices in my head, and they also confirm the strikes will begin this weekend.

 

[Maori Kiwifruit Growers]

Right, I forgot that a solid majority of internet users today are seething third-worlders. Really explains a lot of what you see online.

I said it once and i'll say it again, White/western antisemtism/antizionism has a "logic" to it while brown/third world antisemtism/antizionism is fanstical/ makes zero sense and always are based to make sure arabs and more importantly Muslims never look bad "The Jews (I mean zioninists, see i'm not a jew hater I never said the word!! ) are commiting a genocide (even though palestinian birthrates and populations haven't gone down), the zionists have a magic laser that evaporates people, jews did 9-11/ the dancing israelis (except for the fact that there is proof of the Palestinians celbrating 9/11 when it happened, and that the "dancing israelis" lie was invented by the father of a hijacker. Also, what does a dancing Israeli even look like in that context? Only Muslisms think Jews all look like orthodox jews.).

The jannies at Twitch are Muslims in Egypt that hate Israel and even then only the San Francisco admin team can actually ban Hasan

This fact should be better known.

 

[The Big A]

 

[mindlessobserver]

keep seeing this ground-based fighter and tanker vs. aircraft carrier dichotomy and want to point out that these are not exclusive forces.

Just as ground-based aircraft will take off with a minimal amount of fuel to accommodate larger mission/weapon stores, aircraft carrier-based aircraft often have a refueling requirement. The Super Hornet can sometimes be required to serve as a refueler for carrier-launched fighters but my understanding is that refueling from a dedicated air tanker is much preferred to buddy refueling.

Additionally, re-tasking or length of missions can require carrier-based aircraft to return to air tankers multiple times before continuing.

I don't disagree, but again, my point is why? Iran is not a land locked country. The Ford can park itself offshore and do operations without tankers. When the option is conduct missions with tankers or without, you want to always go without. Tankers fucking suck in the grand scheme of things for missions. They are big targets, they can only do aircraft one at a time, and in a scrap there is more bang for the buck aerial refueling a B-52 over a carrier based F-18.

Which is why my money is not on shit popping off this weekend. The Ford will transit the suez Canal Sunday at a minimum, but more likely Monday and get on station in the Gulf of Oman by Friday next week. At which point shit is more likely to go down.

 

[The Big A]

I don't disagree, but again, my point is why? Iran is not a land locked country. The Ford can park itself offshore and do operations without tankers. When the option is conduct missions with tankers or without, you want to always go without.

You want to put as much distance as possible between your 20 billion dollar carrier and a hostile coastline just in case the intel boys fucked up and didn't detect that Iran had an arsenal of Kinzhals or some other extremely hard to intercept missile with ranges of a thousand miles or more. If using tankers puts you at 1,500 miles from the Iranian coast, that is beyond the range of any known Russian or Chinese hypersonic cruise missiles.

 

[mindlessobserver]

You want to put as much distance as possible between your 20 billion dollar carrier and a hostile coastline just in case the intel boys fucked up and didn't detect that Iran had an arsenal of Kinzhals or some other extremely hard to intercept missile with ranges of a thousand miles or more. If using tankers puts you at 1,500 miles from the Iranian coast, that is beyond the range of any known Russian or Chinese hypersonic cruise missiles.

The US doesn't view its warships as cotton wrapped children. This is pure cope from the multi polarity crowd. Iran is perfectly free to start the war early by attacking the Ford doing a Suez transit. Even if by some miracle they succeed in sinking it, it would just turn a basic bitch regime change operation into a full on war with American ground troops.

Also, since Iran would have technically started it by unprovoked attack, and it holds itself out as a nuclear power, US nuclear weapons doctrine would be in play, which allows for nuclear first strikes against nuclear capable countries who initiate conflict with the USA.

They won't do shit. I know it, and you know it. Iran has played a very long game, and they are rapidly running out of cards. The bluffs are being called and they have nothing to back them up.

 

[God of Nothing]

allah_trump_evil_doings_of_isnt.mp4

Dohne'l Tuhrump!
the deepest cover agent of all

 

[Scout Trooper]

I don't disagree, but again, my point is why? Iran is not a land locked country. The Ford can park itself offshore and do operations without tankers.

My point is that this is probably incorrect. The CSGs are going to require A2A in some fashion which means that this calculus is not the overriding factor in how and where forces are fielded for this operation.

 

[Dharma bump]

just in case the intel boys fucked up

If there was even a whiff of incomplete intel that boat would not be there, and the other one would be docked and its crew at the bar.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

I don't disagree, but again, my point is why? Iran is not a land locked country. The Ford can park itself offshore and do operations without tankers. When the option is conduct missions with tankers or without, you want to always go without. Tankers fucking suck in the grand scheme of things for missions. They are big targets, they can only do aircraft one at a time, and in a scrap there is more bang for the buck aerial refueling a B-52 over a carrier based F-18.

Which is why my money is not on shit popping off this weekend. The Ford will transit the suez Canal Sunday at a minimum, but more likely Monday and get on station in the Gulf of Oman by Friday next week. At which point shit is more likely to go down.

The only reason why we would kick shit off this weekend is if everything else is in place and some time sensitive window (likely in Iran itself) is closing. Sure we have the capability of running flights from the Ford right now, but as you say, it would be better if it was closer.

There is no reason to rush into this, at least no public reason to. This buildup could last another month or more. The American populous doesn't care about us massing forces here or there, not really. What American voters do care about is not being stuck in another long-term bloody commitment abroad. America under Trump will continue to build forces in the region until either there is utterly overwhelming force (see Venezuela), or a deal is made (see North Korea during Trump 1.0's term).

The nascent insurgency in Iran will be there tomorrow, and next week, and next month. It will only grow in sophistication and size over time with U.S. covert support. Iranian capabilities will only degrade over time as they run what little they have ragged. Complacency will set in among the defenders, as is the trend among third world militaries. Russia is tied up in Ukraine, and China is giving only token support. There is nothing that demands the U.S. to go in now, other than online Persian commentariat. Dead protesters? Cynically speaking, they are just more fuel for a coordinated insurgency and other militant resistance. I feel for them, I really do. However, I would trade every Iranian/Persian protester for an American serviceman who could die because the operation started too early.

I had a professor tell me long ago that 'geopolitics move in geological time'. To have Iran fall within 6 moths of Venezuela would be lightning fast. As it stands, the real knock on effects of regime change in Venezuela are just now being calculated, let alone felt.

So, could "Operation: Bomb, Bomb Iran" happen this weekend? Sure. Could it happen next month? Sure. Could it happen next year? Yep. Could all this be a fart in the wind, and nothing militarily happens? Absolutely. Don't lose sleep over this.

 

[E. Knee as Weapon - Cont.]

The US doesn't view its warships as cotton wrapped children. This is pure cope from the multi polarity crowd. Iran is perfectly free to start the war early by attacking the Ford doing a Suez transit. Even if by some miracle they succeed in sinking it, it would just turn a basic bitch regime change operation into a full on war with American ground troops.

Also, since Iran would have technically started it by unprovoked attack, and it holds itself out as a nuclear power, US nuclear weapons doctrine would be in play, which allows for nuclear first strikes against nuclear capable countries who initiate conflict with the USA.

They won't do shit. I know it, and you know it. Iran has played a very long game, and they are rapidly running out of cards. The bluffs are being called and they have nothing to back them up.

A ground war in Iran will destroy America completely so not a bad gambit by the mullahs.

OTOH America clearly isn't preparing for a ground invasion. The numbers are bigger than the lead-up to Afghanistan but way smaller than Iraq 2. All signs point to bombing the fuck out of them and hoping the domestic insurgency handles the infantry role.

 

[mindlessobserver]

A ground war in Iran will destroy America completely so not a bad gambit by the mullahs.

You are assuming such a ground war resulting from the obvious casus belli of an attack on a carrier task force being something that is intended to bring about regime change and nation building rather then exacting maximum damage to the State in question. The USA of 2026 is not the same country that existed in 2006. This is coming as a shock to our allies in Europe. It will come as a catastrophic shock to Iran.

The USA is not playing soft ball anymore. There are a bunch of issues on the floor right now. For one thing, there is the houthi nonsense that took place under the Biden administration. There is also Irans support of Iraqi militias that killed US soldiers during the second Persian gulf war.

But more important then all of that is the fact that America's King, Donald Trump, extended his personal protection over the Iranian protestors and the Ayatollah's men gunned them down anyway. And those who survived were then executed in secret. That, more then anything else, has unleashed the forces in motion that cannot be stopped.

America extended a debt of honor when it extended its protection to the Iranian Protestors, and when the Ayatollah killed them anyway that debt was incurred. America has a blood debt now, and unlike previous administrations of the modern era, the Trump Administration is not one to let debts written in blood go unanswered.

This situation is not about regime change, oil, or even politics at this point. Those issues were what brought America into the situation. But the results? The results are far more primal.

 

[E. Knee as Weapon - Cont.]

This situation is not about regime change, oil, or even politics at this point. Those issues were what brought America into the situation. But the results? The results are far more primal.

It's a nice sentiment but America could also blow up a bunch of symbolic buildings, kill some high profile targets, and declare Mission Accomplished.

I agree that America is inclined to seriously fuck them up (from the air) but I would be amazed if they put boots on the ground, even for something like the Maduro extraction. Happy to be wrong, though.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Iran filed a NOTAM saying they intend to fire something into the strait of hormuz







should happen in an hour

 

[RamblinRosie]

You are assuming such a ground war resulting from the obvious casus belli of an attack on a carrier task force being something that is intended to bring about regime change and nation building rather then exacting maximum damage to the State in question. The USA of 2026 is not the same country that existed in 2006. This is coming as a shock to our allies in Europe. It will come as a catastrophic shock to Iran.

The USA is not playing soft ball anymore. There are a bunch of issues on the floor right now. For one thing, there is the houthi nonsense that took place under the Biden administration. There is also Irans support of Iraqi militias that killed US soldiers during the second Persian gulf war.

But more important then all of that is the fact that America's King, Donald Trump, extended his personal protection over the Iranian protestors and the Ayatollah's men gunned them down anyway. And those who survived were then executed in secret. That, more then anything else, has unleashed the forces in motion that cannot be stopped.

America extended a debt of honor when it extended its protection to the Iranian Protestors, and when the Ayatollah killed them anyway that debt was incurred. America has a blood debt now, and unlike previous administrations of the modern era, the Trump Administration is not one to let debts written in blood go unanswered.

This situation is not about regime change, oil, or even politics at this point. Those issues were what brought America into the situation. But the results? The results are far more primal.

Hasn't Trump implied he thinks Iran had a hand in trying to assassinate him? All other things considered he might also get a personal sense of satisfaction out of bombing the IRGC.

When it comes to boots on the ground, IMO it makes sense for that to be the israelis, as they stand to gain the immediate most from a regime change in Iran.

 

[Farm Hand]

Before I asked whether bombing of Iran will be held off since the Olympics were starting. Now I ask whether Trump will wipe out Iran as a gift to the world for the Olympics closing ceremony. That's 2:30 pm EST on Sunday.

 

[Ghostse]

I hope these negotiations on nuclear capability are just to stall a bit during military buildup, and theoretical nukes by 2052 won´t become the official casus belli. US should've bombed the shit out of the islamists 50,000 casualties ago.

This had better end with Iran de-nuked.

Taking out Iran swiftly and overwhelmingly is a way to show Russia and China that we aren't playing around anymore. Overrunning Iran quickly is a win on multiple fronts.

IT removes a regional ally and grey-market handover zone, and a coutnry that sells them both resources in exchange for military hardware.
If things go maximum hilarity and we get US bases in Iran, this is a huge issue for China who now has to defend their west but especially Russia.

to tl;dr: Once the US withdrew from Afghanistan, Russia figured they could pull all but the barest of their air defense from the remote center of the country and ability to do this was a big factor in their decision to go into Ukraine (the expectation was Russian AAD plus captured Ukrainian systems would put up a potent enough barrier that there was no way NATO would challenge it). Ever since, that AAD has been needed to suppress Ukrainian airpower and drone/missile attacks. US bases in Iran means Russia has to start bring back those Anti-air systems and radars or risk that US could could cut the country in half as well as have strike ability on the "Ground and Silo based" arm of Russia's nuclear triad.

A ground war in Iran will destroy America completely so not a bad gambit by the mullahs.

OTOH America clearly isn't preparing for a ground invasion. The numbers are bigger than the lead-up to Afghanistan but way smaller than Iraq 2. All signs point to bombing the fuck out of them and hoping the domestic insurgency handles the infantry role.

I think you're over estimating that if the US did decide to invade Iran, what said invasion would look like. For starters it woudn't just be the US. Turkey would almost certainly be brought on board, so would Saudi Arabia. Egypt would very likely be tapped for contributions.
The real hilarity would be the almost certainty of Azerbaijan and Armenia ending their 30 years of war and then going to fight Iran shoulder-to-shoulder.
At current I don't think India would offer any real support; while Modi would love to have an excuse to bust out the Curry Carrier and big-dog on the world stage, Iran and Pakistan are currently on the outs diplomatically.
I've not been keeping up enough to cut through the bullshit, but South Africa would likely sign up for peacekeeping in exchange for political & trade concessions. I know the SAG is pissed at Trump for highlighting Boer genocide but I'm not sure how pissed.
I'm not sure what Milei's stance would be, but he owes Trump bigly so we might see Argentina contribute. Chile almost certainly would.
Columbia would most be PMCs at current.
When discussing this elsewheres, someone else said Morrocco would be onboard but I got no evidence for that.
Turkmenistan might possibly join in.
In addition to Turkey, we'd see NATO troops, mostly Eastern NATO.
Anyway this long and gay way to emphasize:
It woudl not just be the US army if Iran was getting the Iraq treatment.

I guess let me posit this to you:
Iraq in 2003 fell to the US in 4 weeks. That was a country that granted had 1/3 the population of Iran but didn't have active protests several times a decade. If the US was going to go Regime Change Hard on Iran, whichis already roiling with internal descent, how long do you think Tehran holds out?

The only real issue is what would happen after the Iranian government implodes as you touch on. And that's why there is the footdragging.