Coffeesforclosers Posted January 15 Posted January 15 So are we actually going to blow up the Mullahs and their thugs?
Coffeesforclosers Posted January 15 Posted January 15 Quote President Donald J. Trump is delaying a decision on striking Iran as the White House consults internally and with allies about the timing for such an operation and whether it would meaningfully destabilize the regime, according to five U.S., Israeli and Arab sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to Axios. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Trump on Wednesday and asked him to wait to give Israel more time to prepare for possible retaliation from Iran. An Israeli source said that in addition to concerns about retaliation, the current plan by the United States includes strikes on security force targets in Iran, but is not seen by Israel as strong or effective enough to meaningfully destabilize the Islamic Regime.
B-Man Posted January 16 Author Posted January 16 Times of Israel: US President Donald Trump reportedly informed Iran that he won’t be ordering a strike on the country over its deadly crackdown on protesters after the leaders of four Arab countries convinced him to hold off. Trump had threatened to hit Iran in recent days if the regime killed protesters who have been pouring into the streets across the country in demonstrations against the Islamic Republic. Several thousand are reportedly dead as part of the crackdown, but Trump declared Wednesday that he had been told, apparently by Tehran, that the killing in Iran had stopped and that the regime would not be executing any protesters. Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan Reza Amiri Moghadam said in remarks during a Thursday visit to a Pakistani ministry that Trump had informed Tehran that he does not want a war and urged the regime to exercise restraint and not target US assets in the region. The concern seems to be that a strike would further empower or entrench the parts of the regime that might fall more easily without American intervention, or just create a failed-state collapse that no one in the region wants. That may be why we're hearing of alternatives to military strikes that focus consequences on elements in a way that more effectively weakens them. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-to-tell-iran-hes-not-about-to-attack-as-us-returns-troops-to-qatar-air-base/ 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 16 Posted January 16 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Times of Israel: US President Donald Trump reportedly informed Iran that he won’t be ordering a strike on the country over its deadly crackdown on protesters after the leaders of four Arab countries convinced him to hold off. Trump had threatened to hit Iran in recent days if the regime killed protesters who have been pouring into the streets across the country in demonstrations against the Islamic Republic. Several thousand are reportedly dead as part of the crackdown, but Trump declared Wednesday that he had been told, apparently by Tehran, that the killing in Iran had stopped and that the regime would not be executing any protesters. Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan Reza Amiri Moghadam said in remarks during a Thursday visit to a Pakistani ministry that Trump had informed Tehran that he does not want a war and urged the regime to exercise restraint and not target US assets in the region. The concern seems to be that a strike would further empower or entrench the parts of the regime that might fall more easily without American intervention, or just create a failed-state collapse that no one in the region wants. That may be why we're hearing of alternatives to military strikes that focus consequences on elements in a way that more effectively weakens them. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-to-tell-iran-hes-not-about-to-attack-as-us-returns-troops-to-qatar-air-base/ https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/capsule-endoscopy/about/pac-20393366
TH3 Posted January 16 Posted January 16 17 hours ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Legit question…which allies ? Israel Russia SA…this is who are our allies now?
Coffeesforclosers Posted January 16 Posted January 16 4 hours ago, B-Man said: Times of Israel: US President Donald Trump reportedly informed Iran that he won’t be ordering a strike on the country over its deadly crackdown on protesters after the leaders of four Arab countries convinced him to hold off. Trump had threatened to hit Iran in recent days if the regime killed protesters who have been pouring into the streets across the country in demonstrations against the Islamic Republic. Several thousand are reportedly dead as part of the crackdown, but Trump declared Wednesday that he had been told, apparently by Tehran, that the killing in Iran had stopped and that the regime would not be executing any protesters. Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan Reza Amiri Moghadam said in remarks during a Thursday visit to a Pakistani ministry that Trump had informed Tehran that he does not want a war and urged the regime to exercise restraint and not target US assets in the region. The concern seems to be that a strike would further empower or entrench the parts of the regime that might fall more easily without American intervention, or just create a failed-state collapse that no one in the region wants. That may be why we're hearing of alternatives to military strikes that focus consequences on elements in a way that more effectively weakens them. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-to-tell-iran-hes-not-about-to-attack-as-us-returns-troops-to-qatar-air-base/ It looks like the Mullahs won this round.
JDHillFan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 1 minute ago, Coffeesforclosers said: It looks like the Mullahs won this round. Disappointment is an understatement
B-Man Posted January 16 Author Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Coffeesforclosers said: It looks like the Mullahs won this round. The fight isn't over though. 2
B-Man Posted January 17 Author Posted January 17 There are two possible reasons why an unidentified operation against Iran slated for approximately Jan 14, 2026 was canceled or postponed: 1. The resources available were not sufficient to achieve the tactical objectives; and or 2. New strategic opportunities emerged that favored shifting to an entirely different set of plans. Since we don't know the character of the canceled operation (or if it really existed) the only clue to the future progress of the game is what new pieces are now moving.
Coffeesforclosers Posted January 17 Posted January 17 4 hours ago, B-Man said: The fight isn't over though. Agreed, but we can't keep banking on urban revolutionaries rising up ever 5-8 years, and getting Les Miserable'd every 5-8 years. If we're hard headed realists now and we only care about interests, it costs us jack squat to say nothing while we do nothing.
Wolfgang Posted January 17 Posted January 17 11 hours ago, B-Man said: The fight isn't over though. The resident lefties are the definition of short term thinking... The bombs didn't drop fast enough for them... And so they pout and cry about it... Meanwhile, American assets continue to pre-position... These morons have zero patience... Every hour that goes by, the IRGC weakens... We will strike them at the appropriate time... And not one nano-second sooner...
B-Man Posted January 20 Author Posted January 20 Iran admits to the slaughter and counts on the world to look away - editorial Jerusalem Post, by Editorial Board Iran’s supreme leader has now openly acknowledged what the Islamic Republic has spent weeks trying to obscure from the world. In remarks carried by Iranian state media on Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei admitted that “several thousand deaths” had occurred during Iran’s latest wave of nationwide protests, while blaming the United States and Israel for the bloodshed. Protesters, he declared, were “criminals,” “mercenaries,” and mohareb (enemies of God) – a charge that carries the death penalty under Iranian law. For over four decades, the Islamic Republic has relied on a familiar formula for survival. It begins with repression at home, then blames foreign intervention, and waits for the world to hesitate. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-883771
Wolfgang Posted January 24 Posted January 24 On 1/20/2026 at 11:45 AM, B-Man said: Iran admits to the slaughter and counts on the world to look away - editorial Jerusalem Post, by Editorial Board Iran’s supreme leader has now openly acknowledged what the Islamic Republic has spent weeks trying to obscure from the world. In remarks carried by Iranian state media on Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei admitted that “several thousand deaths” had occurred during Iran’s latest wave of nationwide protests, while blaming the United States and Israel for the bloodshed. Protesters, he declared, were “criminals,” “mercenaries,” and mohareb (enemies of God) – a charge that carries the death penalty under Iranian law. For over four decades, the Islamic Republic has relied on a familiar formula for survival. It begins with repression at home, then blames foreign intervention, and waits for the world to hesitate. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-883771 One thing is certain... The American lefties are definitely looking away...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 25 Posted January 25 17 hours ago, Wolfgang said: The American lefties are definitely looking away... 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted January 28 Posted January 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: Sounds like the nuclear facility was not destroyed Maybe? Not really the threat here though. It's the Iranians starting a crisis that demands action from players outside the ME, inflicts debilitating or humiliating losses on us or our allies, and can't be resolved with slick SOF raids or a couple days of air strikes. Ie, an actual regional war, which Iran is highly incentivised to chase (if they have the capability...)because the current set of circumstances doesn't favor them at all. Also because they just finished slaughtering and imprisoning the latest generation of motivated internal dissenters (RIP cute girls with cigarettes). Edited January 28 by Coffeesforclosers 1 1
sherpa Posted January 28 Posted January 28 3 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: Sounds like the nuclear facility was not destroyed I have no idea how you concluded this. 1 1
Recommended Posts