2 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

You’re confusing criticism of Israel with antisemitism. These are not the same, although AIPAC has tried to say they are. Turns out studies show both sides are basically dead even when it comes to being anti-semites. The left does seem more concerned and upset than the right with this, though, I’ll give that to you:

Also, I forgot, was it the college democrats or the college republicans that just sued 3 days ago to preserve their god given right to do Nazi salutes?

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article315076912.html

This is confusing, let’s ask Grok

Why throw the picture of Gaza in while arguing you’re not anti Jew? That landscape is all on islam, and their adherents (Iran supported hamas in this case). The “fringe” isn’t so fringe, as we clearly see by the actions and words of islamists and their supporters throughout the West.

Without strong secular domination in Islamic countries, the mass always falls back to their terroristic and authoritarian foundation. Islam is not compatible with free Western civilization and is a deadly threat to the whole world.

F-35 hit?

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Shocked how antisemitic the left has become, the AI explanation is interesting:

The rise of antisemitism within elements of the political left is a complex phenomenon driven by the intersection of anti-Israel activism, anti-colonial ideology, and the adoption of traditional conspiracy tropes, often masked as progressive critique. While often associated with the Israel-Palestine conflict, this trend has broader roots, including a tendency to view global issues through a strict "oppressor vs. oppressed"

My pea brain has distilled it down to the squad type lunatics the far left has elected.

I didn't reference an AI (not chucking spears), but on the right I feel the anti-semetism has more to do with Jesus being "killed by jews," which enables it as an effective wedge. It's also right in line with the conspiracy-addled right which thinks everything is under the control of some ultra-powerful cabal of jews.

5 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

You’re confusing criticism of Israel with antisemitism. These are not the same, although AIPAC has tried to say they are. Turns out studies show both sides are basically dead even when it comes to being anti-semites. The left does seem more concerned and upset than the right with this, though, I’ll give that to you:

You can absolutely be critical of Israel without being an anti-semite. That's not what anyone is saying.

But, to your point. October 7th gave Israel (not the Jews) the right to displace every single Palestinian from Gaza forever. That action, supported and enabled by Iran, and undertaken by Hamas foreclosed a two-state solution permanently. And I said as much shortly after October 7th. It also gives them the right to overthrow the government of Iran.

2 hours ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

F-35 hit?

Seems real: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/us-f35-fighter-jet-hit-iran-war-b2942023.html

But this footage on Reddit seems suspect. I've never seen engine exhaust under IR so static. Usually it's flickering and moving around...so I'm betting the shoot down footage is fake.

19 minutes ago, StoleIt said:

But this footage on Reddit seems suspect. I've never seen engine exhaust under IR so static. Usually it's flickering and moving around...so I'm betting the shoot down footage is fake.

"Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/CombatFootage."

USAF pilot, was hurt

5 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Seems real: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/us-f35-fighter-jet-hit-iran-war-b2942023.html

But this footage on Reddit seems suspect. I've never seen engine exhaust under IR so static. Usually it's flickering and moving around...so I'm betting the shoot down footage is fake.

Sadly, incorrect.

Source:

The War Zone

USAF F-35 Makes Emergency Landing After Allegedly Being H...

The F-35 was flying a combat mission over Iran when it was forced to divert to a U.S. airbase. The F-35 was flying a combat mission over Iran when it was forced to divert to a U.S. airbase.

US removes sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian oil

Just like we planned it...

Random internet comparison:

Edited yesterday at 03:07 AM1 day by StoleIt

The Obama administration gave Iran roughly $1.7 billion in 2016. We're now allowing 140 million barrels of Iranian oil to be sold. If that oil only sold for $90/barrel it would be $12.6 billion. Does anyone know if there is some financial intricacy I'm missing here that prevents Iran from making that money?

4D chess from an army major and a business genius that bankrupted a casino

This forum still needs a TDS button.........

42 minutes ago, Blue said:

This forum still needs a TDS button.........

100% and what these nutbags above fail to mention is the U.S. is blocking Iran from receiving the funds for the sale. The move helps stabilize the price of oil, specifically blocks the sale to China, North Korea and Cuba, deprives Iran of the revenue...sounds like 3D chess to me.

4 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

100% and what these nutbags above fail to mention is the U.S. is blocking Iran from receiving the funds for the sale. The move helps stabilize the price of oil, specifically blocks the sale to China, North Korea and Cuba, deprives Iran of the revenue...sounds like 3D chess to me.

So, Iranian oil can be sold, but Iran can’t receive revenue from any of the sales of their oil? Is that what you’re saying? Then why would Iran not continue to attack oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz until they were literally Winchester just out of spite?

2 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

So, Iranian oil can be sold, but Iran can’t receive revenue from any of the sales of their oil? Is that what you’re saying? Then why would Iran not continue to attack oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz until they were literally Winchester just out of spite?

Huh? When did I say they would stop attacking?

I believe we fully expect them to continue to attack, which is why we have destroyed their big Navy and are currently waging a campaign against their swift boats...You might have heard A-10, Apaches and other assets are now in that fight. We have also shifted the air campaign to attacking launch sites and storage for anti-ship capabilities.

The price of oil is just as much perception as it is supply. Selling 140 Million barrels will have a small part on both factors. The real issue as BOTH sides know is getting ships flowing through the straight. Killing the swift boats and launchers is part two, a coalition (which it appears is now forming), to sweep the mines is the final stage.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

the U.S. is blocking Iran from receiving the funds for the sale.

This is the financial intricacy I was hoping was being lost in the details.

I'll try to be more judicious in my use of the word "anyone" when asking a serious question next time. With that ambiguity it was a coin flip between a short rage bait response from the left or a community college dissertation from Ratner...

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

100% and what these nutbags above fail to mention is the U.S. is blocking Iran from receiving the funds for the sale. The move helps stabilize the price of oil, specifically blocks the sale to China, North Korea and Cuba, deprives Iran of the revenue...sounds like 3D chess to me.

nutbag? classy.

source on the bolded?

Amazing how many geopolitical, economics, and military strategy experts all of a sudden appear (not just on this forum) during a crisis to start criticizing the whole operation, yet those same experts need to have the details explained to them in small and unclassified terms, otherwise what the US is doing is obviously stupid.

Edited yesterday at 09:37 PM1 day by FourFans

To destroy the power plants or not?

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-iran-trade-threats-over-energy-targets-war-escalates-2026-03-22/

I’m not sure this will work, the regime has prepared for this for years.

I fear that boots on the ground are looking necessary to destroy the Iranian Islamic regime.

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

To destroy the power plants or not?

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-iran-trade-threats-over-energy-targets-war-escalates-2026-03-22/

I’m not sure this will work, the regime has prepared for this for years.

I fear that boots on the ground are looking necessary to destroy the Iranian Islamic regime.

When the regime offed between 20 and 40k of their people after the nuke plant strikes….this was always going to be the only option. The regime knows if they hand over power they all meet the gallows. I’m not fully versed on Iranian gun laws but I’m willing to bet most ppl don’t have any firearms.

so you’re options are military coup, armed Kurds, of US forces of some kind.

regime will play the long game….piss off all their neighbors w drone strikes to get US/Israel to back down.

14 minutes ago, ecugringo said:

When the regime offed between 20 and 40k of their people after the nuke plant strikes….this was always going to be the only option. The regime knows if they hand over power they all meet the gallows. I’m not fully versed on Iranian gun laws but I’m willing to bet most ppl don’t have any firearms.

so you’re options are military coup, armed Kurds, of US forces of some kind.

regime will play the long game….piss off all their neighbors w drone strikes to get US/Israel to back down.

Yeah, I suspect that Trump is as much of gambler in military action as Putin is and the incredible success of Midnight Hammer, Maduro raid, etc… convinced him it was time for a trifecta.

That is a quick decisive powerful military operation with outsized results and low costs in blood and treasure, not implying his advisers or an ally country lied or misled him but we gambled that the regime was more fragile and more disliked than is apparently the truth.

Not saying a majority of Iranians want theocracy but enough do to keep that regime afloat, enough are willing to serve in the IRGC, the Basij, police and the conventional military forces to support the clerical regime and all of its odious activities.

I’m not looking for the US to get into major ground war, occupation and inevitable COIN mission but unless we get very lucky and somehow take out thousands of the leaders and enforcers of the revolutionary Islamic regime and simultaneously cause/support an uprising that is acceptable (secular military dictatorship is fine initially), even a severely wounded Iranian regime that survives is not going to be an optimal outcome, maybe acceptable in the short term long term I suspect not.

It seems the idea of ground war is in the zeitgeist

The War Zone

What Boots On The Ground In Iran Could Entail, According...

Joseph Votel offers insights on securing Iran's uranium, seizing Kharg Island, dwindling stocks of missile interceptors, and how long Epic Fury will last.

I think in the big picture, this is another test like Ukraine is for the West.

We just quit the mission in Afghanistan but the mission was not possible, to change their society into something we wanted, we should have accepted that earlier and come to some kind of settlement that would have not led to our ignominious departure.

Ukraine is still in the fight but approaching an inevitable and I would say acceptable in the short term pause in the conflict. If we recognize that and prepare we (the West) can win the next inevitable aggression of Russia.

Iran is the chance to defeat jihadism for a second time (first was Islamic State) and much more meaningfully the project of Islamic aggression. Israel must defeat Hamas and eventually Hezbollah, it is a cultural, religious and political phenomenon that can not be allowed to succeed.

There are other Islamic governments and movements that we have come to terms with and can have relations with, carefully and somewhat warily I would advise but the ones I listed along with the other usual suspects can not be given quarter when it comes time to act.

History is never over, the test never ends.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Clark Griswold

On 3/21/2026 at 10:37 AM, ClearedHot said:

100% and what these nutbags above fail to mention is the U.S. is blocking Iran from receiving the funds for the sale. The move helps stabilize the price of oil, specifically blocks the sale to China, North Korea and Cuba, deprives Iran of the revenue...sounds like 3D chess to me.

How is that possible?

52 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

How is that possible?

The U.S. restricts Iranian oil sales primarily through heavy financial and shipping sanctions, targeting foreign banks, shipping companies, and refiners that buy from Iran to cripple its economy. These measures, often utilizing secondary sanctions, essentially cut Iran off from the global financial system and tanker services, though occasional temporary waivers (like the 2026 30-day waivers for stranded oil) are used for global price stabilization.

1. Secondary Sanctions: The U.S. threatens to penalize third-party countries and companies—notably in China—that purchase Iranian oil or petroleum products.

2. Banking Restrictions: Sanctions prevent Iran from accessing international financial systems, making it difficult to process payments for oil sales, often forcing the use of illicit networks.

3. Shipping & Tanker Bans: The U.S. targets the national tanker company of Iran (NITC) and forces shipping insurance providers (like the International Group of P&I Clubs) to deny coverage for vessels carrying Iranian oil.

4. Maximum Pressure Campaign: Sanctions target Iran's petrochemical and energy sectors directly, focusing on closing off all avenues for revenue.