In the spirit of honest debrief and as this quick intervention enters its sixth month, I thought it would be fun to make a little report card courtesy of our AI overlords. Prompts are included in the screenshots for full transparency. If you don't like it.. sorry.. I just asked the robot (chat gpt-5) the questions

Edited August 10Aug 10 by Pooter

13 minutes ago, Pooter said:

In the spirit of honest debrief and as this quick intervention enters its sixth month, I thought it would be fun to make a little report card courtesy of our AI overlords. Prompts are included in the screenshots for full transparency. If you don't like it.. sorry.. I just asked the robot the questions

Shit man, I passed every class this semester

Here's a fun one.. congrats to @ViperMan

Again.. just asking the robot.

Also I genuinely hope this all turns around and in 6 months you guys are chat gpt-roasting me for being the alarmist goofball, I so badly want reality to not suck this much

I personally love the fact that "butthurt" is one of the quantifiable characteristics.

MX leadership at a deployed location will be busy the next few weeks trying to figure out who did this since it went viral 😂

Hilarious! I love the no winner tic tac toe, a perfect impression.

That “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” Beach Boys song works really good with Oman too as it turns out

Things aren't going well for Iran. You know this because this is the front page headliner on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/18/business/iran-strait-of-hormuz-oil

Iran can inflict short term pain, yes. In the end, they will have fiddled themselves into irrelevancy.

Edited Tuesday at 10:11 PM2 days by ViperMan

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Things aren't going well for Iran. You know this because this is the front page headliner on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/18/business/iran-strait-of-hormuz-oil

Iran can inflict short term pain, yes. In the end, they will have fiddled themselves into irrelevancy.

Anybody have a CNN subscription (lol) so we can have access to the full article and can see the actual argument here? I’d love to hear some good news but forgive me if I’m wary of war predictions from both viperman and 18-year CNN editors who happen to be Jewish seminary grads

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Anybody have a CNN subscription (lol) so we can have access to the full article and can see the actual argument here? I’d love to hear some good news but forgive me if I’m wary of war predictions from both viperman and 18-year CNN editors who happen to be Jewish seminary grads

https://archive.ph/

Though in this case I did not need a subscription to CNN to read it

Commuter worthy read

https://warontherocks.com/managed-instability-why-the-wars-against-iran-and-ukraine-can-go-on-and-on-and-on/

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Commuter worthy read

https://warontherocks.com/managed-instability-why-the-wars-against-iran-and-ukraine-can-go-on-and-on-and-on/

Great article. I think the most insightful part is where he talks about the conditions that lead to a “managed instability” situation:

I think another condition that can lead to this state of “managed instability” is an arrogant superpower who thinks it will be a quick intervention but the country they attack perceives it as an existential threat to their existence. At that point you have the more powerful country in the conflict half assing it and the less powerful country whole assing it, which creates semi-parity and leads to battlefield/strategic stagnation.

The obvious follow up question to that is who led these superpowers to believe these would be quick and easy interventions, and what their motives might be.

15 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

https://archive.ph/

Though in this case I did not need a subscription to CNN to read it

As for the CNN ‘Iran losing control of the strait argument.’ I find it utterly unconvincing. So we’ve had some ships transit an Omani route under full emcon get through. Sweet. That’s hardly a return to normal and honestly it’s a tacit admission that Iran still absolutely has the ability to threaten normal ops through the waterway. Which was the whole point all along. No one ever said Iran controlled the strait. All they have to do is hold traffic in there at risk enough to cause disruptions that they can use for leverage.

It’s not gonna be long before they figure out a kill chain for ships that aren’t squawking and are a few miles further away.. if they haven’t already.. and then we’re back to square one. All the while we’re now committed to an enduring naval presence in the strait to hopefully claw our way back to something that (maybe) resembles the original status quo.

Edited yesterday at 04:16 AM1 day by Pooter

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

I think another condition that can lead to this state of “managed instability” is an arrogant superpower who thinks it will be a quick intervention but the country they attack perceives it as an existential threat to their existence. At that point you have the more powerful country in the conflict half assing it and the less powerful country whole assing it, which creates semi-parity and leads to battlefield/strategic stagnation.

The obvious follow up question to that is who led these superpowers to believe these would be quick and easy interventions, and what their motives might be.

Yup, there is no tomorrow for the revolutionary government of the Iran if they lose hence why they spent 40 years getting ready for this.

I did my own bar napkin math and I came up with a 1 million man fighting force to take, occupy and pacify Iran. Probably supported by another 1 million+ military members, 100+ CAPs, 3 carrier battle groups, etc… basically a doubling of the DOW budget, conscription required, the kitchen sink, etc… we can’t or won’t do that.

We would end America as we know it, I’m not even opposed to military action against Iran to forestall nuclear weapons development but I know that if we decided that regime change is the only way to guarantee that the revolutionary Islamic government of Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, we would destroy our country in the process unless we as a country through a popular process decided this was worth it. One party making it their explicit policy, winning an election cycle and then executing it.

I doubt that will happen so a lesser approach is likely required.

My policy and strategy recommendations would be to consistently degrade conventional capabilities, factor and prioritize minimal collateral damage, deny economic resources to the regime; begin the diplomatic effects to isolate the regime; establish a new Iranian government in absentia that is a visible alternative to the revolutionary Islamic one and settle in for a multi year effort to collapse the regime.

Did Israel trick us into attacking Iran? No. Did they encourage us to? Yes.

The Venn diagram of Israel’s interests and America’s interests do overlap in Iran not having a nuclear weapons capability but Israel’s interest in this is much larger than ours, hence why they pulled every lever to get us to go kinetic.

Others encouraged the administration to attack too, Israel was only part of the coalition. Totally neutral in that statement, I like the Israelis but don’t see them as infallible or without parochial interests either, they are a good ally mostly but not angels either, proceed accordingly.

The Irony is the analogous behavior of President Trump and President Putin, both had successful military ops before that IMO encouraged them to try the big one. Putin had the successful operation taking Crimea and Trump had Midnight Hammer and Venezuela, they both misinterpreted the successes of those very different focused missions and thought they were indicators of likely success in a major conventional campaign.

Nope, not unless you gear up and commit your country to a major military campaign, you’ll not lose what you start but you won’t win either. Putin has obviously gotten close to that total mobilization required if you want to win but even he thinks that is likely more than his nation will support. President Trump hasn’t even hinted at what would likely be required and/or doing that.

Edited yesterday at 02:13 PM1 day by Clark Griswold

All good points. And I agree with your napkin math. Would need an absolutely massive amount of Schlitz to effect the desired regime change outcome at this point. And on the Putin/Trump comparison , I totally agree except that Putin probably has more public support for the massive mobilizations because the threat of nato on the doorstep of Russia is at least a bit more of a real threat to everyday Russians than Iran nuking NYC or whatever the war hawks want you to believe was imminent about this for us.

Still my biggest frustration with this war is that you and I can sit here and do napkin math that was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain, but this war was pitched as a “quick in and out, 20 minute adventure.” Which means those pitching it are either:

A) literally so stupid they never deserve to be listened to again on matters of military and foreign policy

or (more likely)

B) desired/foresaw the “managed instability” outcome and deliberately lied about how feasible this was to rope us into a war that would inevitably trend in that direction.

Edited yesterday at 06:46 PM1 day by Pooter

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

B) desired/foresaw the “managed instability” outcome and deliberately lied about how feasible this was to rope us into a war that would inevitably trend in that direction.

Yup, that’s the problem / fact of life with American foreign policy problems. They are longer lasting than our election cycles, this causes politicians to gamble and occasionally get us knee deep without gathering the necessary public, political and institutional support to sustain and prosecute successfully said foreign policy challenge.

13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup, that’s the problem / fact of life with American foreign policy problems. They are longer lasting than our election cycles, this causes politicians to gamble and occasionally get us knee deep without gathering the necessary public, political and institutional support to sustain and prosecute successfully said foreign policy challenge.

Well in this case I think it goes a bit further than just a miscalculated gamble on the timeline/public support. The admin literally ran on not doing any more of these things because they knew exactly where public sentiment was for more middle eastern interventions. And then after winning they bait&switched the whole country. Only once it turned into an unpopular shitshow did we start hearing the line: “aCtUaLLy, we’ve been at war with Iran for 47 years.”

Oh really? Sweet thanks, then why the fuck weren’t you saying that on the campaign trail?

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

Well in this case I think it goes a bit further than just a miscalculated gamble on the timeline/public support. The admin literally ran on not doing any more of these things because they knew exactly where public sentiment was for more middle eastern interventions. And then after winning they bait&switched the whole country. Only once it turned into an unpopular shitshow did we start hearing the line: “aCtUaLLy, we’ve been at war with Iran for 47 years.”

Oh really? Sweet thanks, then why the fuck weren’t you saying that on the campaign trail?

Yeah, I think they all do some variation of that about basically everything as our society has regressed; intellectually, culturally and politically.

Getting a good majority 330+ million people to support policies that require personal sacrifice, delayed gratification and none to tangential material benefits to them is apparently too much for our politicians to attempt hence the lying, obfuscation, gas lighting, denial and wild overselling of all manner of policies.

As to Iran though, if it were President Clark Griswold (God help us) I would explain in an Oval Office address:

The history of aggression, terrorism and disruptive activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the United States and broader civilized world; probably releasing declassified information in that address to explain why we should fight them.

What will be required of America, why this will succeed, how we will win, what victory means for the US and how the people of Iran can be helped. Why this is not imperialism, why it is right and why America half way around the world is responsible for this fight.

Break Break

As to strategy with Iran, had a stray thought on it… mentioned before in this thread I think but why not offer their provinces / non Persian areas that openly resist the IGRC weapons, support, reprieve from air strikes, etc… it would not be the only strategic LOE but one of them…

Disrupt areas of the country not fully loyal to the revolutionary regime, deny oil export income, maximum economic sanctions but continuous delivery of humanitarian aid, block / control most air and maritime traffic, aggressively attack proxies abroad, lean on allies very hard to renounce diplomatic ties, continually execute long range strikes, split internal factions (Army vs IGRC) to offer leadership support and recognition in a post bellum Iran… basically everything short of a ground invasion while you prepare for a ground invasion…