Huila
Padawan Learner
Iran has gone all out with its AI War Propaganda; having a distributed- decentralized multiple production of studios. Kim Iversen compiled their most recent releases.
Brace Yourselves For War Between Iran and Israel
- Thread starter Ocean
- Start date
Brings to mind this from Lobaczewski:
Invading any of the islands is such a crazy idea from a military perspective, but there's another possibility described here:
Landing at a naval base on the coast of the mainland has several advantages in terms of air cover, terrain, approach routes and above all the possibility of the local Baluch people becoming involved (or being less hostile to your presence at least).
But it's only slightly less insane because you still have to bring boats within range of all kinds of Iranian assets.
Same.
Ask any teenager who played any Fortnite-like games about such a military tactic, and every kid will tell you it´s a no-go option. I don´t know anything about a military strategies and I think it´s insane, and it all reminds me of the meme:
Are we seeing here only a wishful thinking or is here some "humiliation ritual" going on or the Devil is so strong that blinds all rational mind or what? I really don´t understand. Perhaps it´s simply as you´ve said: the hubris - they wont dare to strike us. Which is equally absurd as any other reason.
Tomiro
Jedi Master
I don't see what they hope to accomplish with such a small force. Ok, so they might be able to capture an island or two, or establish a beachhead, but then what? It's not likely going to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Neocon Think Tank documents, like Which Path to Persia, from 2009, about an invasion of Iran talk about 250 000 soldiers, and I'm not sure if that would be enough.
Iran also successfully fought off the invasion from Iraq in 1980, consisting of some 200 000 soldiers, in a war that lasted 8 years, with millions of casualties.
Neocon Think Tank documents, like Which Path to Persia, from 2009, about an invasion of Iran talk about 250 000 soldiers, and I'm not sure if that would be enough.
Iran also successfully fought off the invasion from Iraq in 1980, consisting of some 200 000 soldiers, in a war that lasted 8 years, with millions of casualties.
Yes. And that kind of transaction has been in use for several years now, to avoid sanctions (Russia did it too, AFAIK). Try buying anything from sanctioned countries. That's how they have to do it! But it doesn't say much about a "deep state", and more about how to use their system against them. We're talking about money staying in cryptos for minutes, not long-term. Then, it's soon transferred into the country's local currency. Ultimately, this allows anyone using this system to bypass transactions in dollars. Seeing a big conspiracy or deep state coordination is a step too far, IMHO.
unkl brws
The Living Force
It's wishful thinking writ large (imo). I heard of this planned mini invasion yesterday when by chance I came across this note from a Substack page called "Green Beret Nap Time". This is his take on the situation and he seems to think it should be successful (osit).
The question is, what should be successful?
He says this is the most successful way to finish the job. What job?
Sylvia
Jedi
Unfortunately, it's a fact. We're trapped in a "3D STS system" that's nothing but a trap. It is certain that we always have a choice; either you embark but you will "restrict" your free will but while allowing you to learn, or you choose "death" (from an economic or relational point of view) but you will miss out on the lessons to be learned.
So, whether I observe this situation in a personal context or as a leader, choosing to "get on board" will always present opportunities to exploit the system's weaknesses to our advantage, to pull the best "cards from the deck" for our benefit, and even to influence the system's "mechanics" with a STA force to counterbalance it.
Scott Ritter and Colonel McGregor have been saying much the same thing too on their podcasts.
This subject was, of course raised in the 21 March session with the C's who suggested such a landing could turn into a quagmire for the US forces:
In many ways, what the US are considering today reminds me of the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign commencing in March 1915 during the First World War, a project dreamt up by then British First Sea Lord Winston Churchill. It was a very ambitious plan by which a powerful combined British and French fleet would force a passage through the Dardanelle Straits so that large numbers of allied troops could then be landed at the Russian Black Sea ports to bolster Russians forces in their conflict with Turkish, German and Austrian forces on what was the War's Eastern Front, with the additional aim of knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the War. It was a daring plan that relied on overwhelming sea power to overcome the Turkish forts and gun emplacements guarding the narrow straits (much more narrow in places than the Straits of Hormuz).
The combined British and French fleet numbering 18 battleships and numerous cruiser and destroyer escorts sailed into the straits to engage in an artillery duel with the Turkish guns defending the narrow straits. The turning point came as a result though of one small Turkish minelayer having succeeded in mining the straits, which led directly to the loss in one day of three battleships sunk and three others badly damaged. The losses forced the allied naval commander Admiral John de Robeck to sound the "general recall" to protect what remained of his force.
The Allied fleet having failed to force a passage through the Dardanelles, an amphibious landing on the Gallipoli peninsula began in April 1915. In January 1916, after eight months' fighting, with approximately 250,000 casualties on each side, the land campaign was abandoned and the invasion force was withdrawn. It was a costly campaign for the Allied powers and the Ottoman Empire as well as for the sponsors of the expedition, especially Winston Churchill who was forced to resign as First Sea Lord (MJF: watch out Pete Hegseth!).
The Gallipoli Campaign will have a special resonance for Australian and New Zealand Forum members as it proved a turning point in the two countries' histories due to the egregious losses they, as emerging nations, suffered during the campaign. I actually attended the 100th anniversary of the landings to honour my maternal Grandfather and his Irish comrades who were amongst the first British forces to land on the Gallipoli Peninsula. His battalion were annihilated in one morning as they were cut down by Turkish machine gun fire on the beach whilst disembarking (think of the landing scene in the movie Saving Private Ryan to get some idea of the carnage). Of over 600 men who landed, only 29 were still fit for duty by the end of the day. In eight months of fighting the Allied forces advanced no more than a few hundred metres from the cliffs where they landed, reflecting what the C's said about Br'er Rabbit* getting stuck in the Tar Baby.
*BTW: I loved those stories as a young child but now they are banned by the woke brigade for being racist.
In many ways I can see potential parallels here with an upcoming American amphibious/airborne assault ether on the extremely steep Iranian coastline or on Kharg Island. Instead of the intense machine gun fire of yesteryear, American forces would no doubt be hit instead by swarms of suicide drones. Naval vessels and landing boats would be subject to dangers from modern, sophisticated sea mines and attacks from swarms of fast Iranian speed boats and launches, some packed with high explosives. The Iranians may still have some small, torpedo armed submarines available too.
In 1915 Britain was a superpower filled with Imperial hubris, yet in spite of all its power, it could not dislodge determined Turkish defenders from their strong positions. If the C's are correct, then in spite of Trump's hubris and overwhelming US might, US forces may end up suffering the same fate as their counterparts in 1915. Given the impact the Gallipoli Campaign had on my grandfather's later life (at one stage he was thrown on a dead pile but crawled off and reported back for duty), I do not envy the young men (and women) who may be asked to conduct such a landing.
The combined British and French fleet numbering 18 battleships and numerous cruiser and destroyer escorts sailed into the straits to engage in an artillery duel with the Turkish guns defending the narrow straits. The turning point came as a result though of one small Turkish minelayer having succeeded in mining the straits, which led directly to the loss in one day of three battleships sunk and three others badly damaged. The losses forced the allied naval commander Admiral John de Robeck to sound the "general recall" to protect what remained of his force.
The Allied fleet having failed to force a passage through the Dardanelles, an amphibious landing on the Gallipoli peninsula began in April 1915. In January 1916, after eight months' fighting, with approximately 250,000 casualties on each side, the land campaign was abandoned and the invasion force was withdrawn. It was a costly campaign for the Allied powers and the Ottoman Empire as well as for the sponsors of the expedition, especially Winston Churchill who was forced to resign as First Sea Lord (MJF: watch out Pete Hegseth!).
The Gallipoli Campaign will have a special resonance for Australian and New Zealand Forum members as it proved a turning point in the two countries' histories due to the egregious losses they, as emerging nations, suffered during the campaign. I actually attended the 100th anniversary of the landings to honour my maternal Grandfather and his Irish comrades who were amongst the first British forces to land on the Gallipoli Peninsula. His battalion were annihilated in one morning as they were cut down by Turkish machine gun fire on the beach whilst disembarking (think of the landing scene in the movie Saving Private Ryan to get some idea of the carnage). Of over 600 men who landed, only 29 were still fit for duty by the end of the day. In eight months of fighting the Allied forces advanced no more than a few hundred metres from the cliffs where they landed, reflecting what the C's said about Br'er Rabbit* getting stuck in the Tar Baby.
*BTW: I loved those stories as a young child but now they are banned by the woke brigade for being racist.
In many ways I can see potential parallels here with an upcoming American amphibious/airborne assault ether on the extremely steep Iranian coastline or on Kharg Island. Instead of the intense machine gun fire of yesteryear, American forces would no doubt be hit instead by swarms of suicide drones. Naval vessels and landing boats would be subject to dangers from modern, sophisticated sea mines and attacks from swarms of fast Iranian speed boats and launches, some packed with high explosives. The Iranians may still have some small, torpedo armed submarines available too.
In 1915 Britain was a superpower filled with Imperial hubris, yet in spite of all its power, it could not dislodge determined Turkish defenders from their strong positions. If the C's are correct, then in spite of Trump's hubris and overwhelming US might, US forces may end up suffering the same fate as their counterparts in 1915. Given the impact the Gallipoli Campaign had on my grandfather's later life (at one stage he was thrown on a dead pile but crawled off and reported back for duty), I do not envy the young men (and women) who may be asked to conduct such a landing.
lilies
The Living Force
World Hunger is their only goal!
1. a strategic US army exercise-planner former CIA agent, who actually created the plans and the US Army carried out the island-taking exercise and they deemed it a total NO CAN DO 20 years ago..
2. Iran-Iraq War veteran colonel who was actually ON THE GROUND as boots on the ground that time on the same shoreline that Trump's military planners now allegedly want to put soldiers on. ITS IMPOSSIBLE!! To put soldiers on Iran's shoreline or on the two strategic islands, because:
1. US + UAE Proxy Army ships sailing there, to land the troops, will be shot to pieces
2. US + proxy army they don't have enough Ospreys - helicopter troop carriers to begin a large scale insane invasion - and the carrier ships from which those Osprey helis supposed to take off from - will have to sail close there first, and everything would be SHOT TO PIECES, before the heli carrier ships or the D-Day-type amphibious assault ships even get "there":
Irans shoreline is an insanely hostile environment to ground-troops, inhospitable, undefendable, a "beach" from hell on most of its entire length of 1875 nautical miles. So any landing troops - if they even survive the en route - will be landing in a monsters maw and will be ground to pieces on the rough shoreline not made for any invasion.
I realized, that The One World Government doesn't want any war resolution, any peace, any opening INSTEAD they want the Strait of Hormuz to be permanently SHUT in order to ensure Global Famine and global die-off of at least 3 billion by 2026 Christmas, I think.
See how supermarket(s) are already _ e m p t y _ in DARWIN, Australia??:
What do you think will happen to supermarkets in two months? While the US is pretending to landing troops in Iran, while they are pretending to be holding peace talks? Behind the curtain they are licking the backsides of - I think - The Consortium Planners, who told them this, I think:
Consortium to The West / Israel:
- We want Earth's population down to 3 billion by end of 2026, best in 6 months! Look at how the meteorites and large asteroids started to arrive. We are out of time! Kill them all!!
The West / Israel:
- Yes, Master! We will create oil scarcity and food scarcity, empty stores, empty supermarkets, billions will starve to death from famine. Then we can introduce a couple nasty viruses to top off the efforts toward reducing global population! We surely will reach SUB 3 BILLION BY END OF 2026, if we can continue to crash the world-economy this way!
Begin from videotime 7:42 and just listen a couple minutes and feel the hairs on your back stand up: --this is no US-Israeli military strategy, this is the Strategy For World Hunger!!
It just hit me, when watching these two professional military experts telling the Iranian interviewer that a land invasion of Iran is impossible:
1. a strategic US army exercise-planner former CIA agent, who actually created the plans and the US Army carried out the island-taking exercise and they deemed it a total NO CAN DO 20 years ago..
2. Iran-Iraq War veteran colonel who was actually ON THE GROUND as boots on the ground that time on the same shoreline that Trump's military planners now allegedly want to put soldiers on. ITS IMPOSSIBLE!! To put soldiers on Iran's shoreline or on the two strategic islands, because:
1. US + UAE Proxy Army ships sailing there, to land the troops, will be shot to pieces
2. US + proxy army they don't have enough Ospreys - helicopter troop carriers to begin a large scale insane invasion - and the carrier ships from which those Osprey helis supposed to take off from - will have to sail close there first, and everything would be SHOT TO PIECES, before the heli carrier ships or the D-Day-type amphibious assault ships even get "there":
Irans shoreline is an insanely hostile environment to ground-troops, inhospitable, undefendable, a "beach" from hell on most of its entire length of 1875 nautical miles. So any landing troops - if they even survive the en route - will be landing in a monsters maw and will be ground to pieces on the rough shoreline not made for any invasion.
I realized, that The One World Government doesn't want any war resolution, any peace, any opening INSTEAD they want the Strait of Hormuz to be permanently SHUT in order to ensure Global Famine and global die-off of at least 3 billion by 2026 Christmas, I think.
See how supermarket(s) are already _ e m p t y _ in DARWIN, Australia??:
What do you think will happen to supermarkets in two months? While the US is pretending to landing troops in Iran, while they are pretending to be holding peace talks? Behind the curtain they are licking the backsides of - I think - The Consortium Planners, who told them this, I think:
Consortium to The West / Israel:
- We want Earth's population down to 3 billion by end of 2026, best in 6 months! Look at how the meteorites and large asteroids started to arrive. We are out of time! Kill them all!!
The West / Israel:
- Yes, Master! We will create oil scarcity and food scarcity, empty stores, empty supermarkets, billions will starve to death from famine. Then we can introduce a couple nasty viruses to top off the efforts toward reducing global population! We surely will reach SUB 3 BILLION BY END OF 2026, if we can continue to crash the world-economy this way!
Begin from videotime 7:42 and just listen a couple minutes and feel the hairs on your back stand up: --this is no US-Israeli military strategy, this is the Strategy For World Hunger!!
Last edited:
And don't forget the recent undergrounder drone swarm over a military base in Louisiana, as mentioned in the 21 March 20026 session:
Hmmm... I wonder what they were up to?
And judging from Trump's address to his presidential cabinet today, he is proud of this.
Grok chat:
Q: What strategic value would it be to take Kharg island and how can Iran respond
A:
Taking (or seizing control of) Kharg Island would deliver massive strategic leverage against Iran, primarily by choking off its economic lifeline, while also serving as potential forward operating leverage in the Persian Gulf.
Strategic Value
Kharg Island (a small coral outcrop ~25–30 km off Iran’s mainland coast in the northern Persian Gulf, administered by Bushehr Province) is Iran’s primary oil export terminal. It handles ~90–94% of Iran’s crude oil exports (roughly 1.5–1.6 million barrels per day in recent periods, with surge capacity higher), pipelines from major fields (e.g., Ahvaz, Marun, Gachsaran), vast storage (~30 million barrels capacity), and jetties that can load up to 10 supertankers simultaneously in deep water (unlike the shallow mainland coast).
• Economic strangulation: Iran’s government, military (including the IRGC), and war effort depend heavily on oil revenue. Seizing the island would cut off nearly all seaborne crude exports immediately. Unlike airstrikes that could damage infrastructure (and spike global oil prices), control allows the U.S./allies to deny revenue indefinitely while potentially supervising or redirecting flows as leverage. Rebuilding alternative terminals could take 1–2+ years.
• Pressure on the Strait of Hormuz: The island is ~400–500 km northwest of the Strait. Seizing it has been discussed as a way to force Iran to reopen the Strait (which it has blockaded/disrupted in the 2026 conflict, threatening ~20% of global oil/gas flows). It turns Iran’s economic “backbone” into a bargaining chip without needing a full mainland invasion.
• Military/operational platform: Control could enable raids, ISR, or strikes deeper into Iran from a forward base close to the mainland. It also neutralizes Iranian naval/mining assets staged there (U.S. strikes on March 13, 2026, already hit >90 military targets like air defenses, naval base, missile/mine storage—but deliberately spared oil facilities).
• Broader impact: Global markets would feel secondary effects (higher prices, supply risks), but the primary hit is to Iran (and its main buyer, China). Analysts have long called it Iran’s “greatest vulnerability” and a “single point of failure.”
In the current 2026 conflict context, U.S. officials (including via Trump statements and reports) have floated seizure/blockade options as a “Plan B” after airstrikes, with Marine Expeditionary Units and potential 82nd Airborne elements positioned for amphibious/rapid response roles. It would mark a major escalation from air/naval operations to boots-on-the-ground control.
How Iran Could Respond
Iran treats Kharg as a “fortress” and has been actively preparing for exactly this scenario (per U.S. intelligence reporting as of late March 2026). A seizure attempt would likely trigger intense, multi-layered resistance, with risks of high U.S. casualties and regional spillover.
Immediate defensive measures (already underway):
• Fortifications and traps: Additional troops/personnel deployed; anti-personnel and anti-armor mines laid on shorelines and potential landing zones; layered defenses around key sites.
• Air defenses: Extra MANPADS (shoulder-fired SAMs) and other mobile/ground-based systems moved to the island to contest air support or helicopters during an assault.
• Naval/mining threats: Pre-positioned mines in surrounding waters; naval assets for harassment.
If an assault/seizure occurs:
• Direct kinetic response: Heavy use of missiles, drones, rockets, and artillery from the nearby mainland (the island is well within range). Iranian statements vow “deadly,” “relentless,” and “catastrophic” retaliation against any landing forces.
• Asymmetric escalation:
• Intensify Strait of Hormuz disruptions (mines, attacks on shipping).
• Strikes on Gulf Arab states’ oil/LNG infrastructure or U.S. bases (Iran has already accused regional actors of enabling operations and warned of attacks on supporting countries’ vital sites).
• Proxy activation (Houthis, militias in Iraq/Syria) for wider attacks on shipping or energy targets.
• Longer-term: Iran could attempt guerrilla-style resistance on the island or rapid counter-attacks to reclaim it, drawing on experience from the Iran-Iraq War (when the island was bombed but later rebuilt). Full occupation would be logistically challenging for attackers due to proximity to Iranian firepower.
Risks and caveats: U.S. planners note the island’s defenses make it a potential “trap,” with forces exposed to sustained Iranian fire. Any seizure would likely require significant air/naval suppression first and could drive oil prices sharply higher while risking broader war. Iran has signaled it views this as an existential economic threat, so responses would prioritize maximum disruption.
The situation remains highly fluid as of March 26, 2026—U.S. strikes have already degraded military assets on Kharg, but the oil infrastructure stands as the ultimate prize (or pressure point). Official statements from CENTCOM or Tehran would provide the latest indicators.
Q: What strategic value would it be to take Kharg island and how can Iran respond
A:
Taking (or seizing control of) Kharg Island would deliver massive strategic leverage against Iran, primarily by choking off its economic lifeline, while also serving as potential forward operating leverage in the Persian Gulf.
Strategic Value
Kharg Island (a small coral outcrop ~25–30 km off Iran’s mainland coast in the northern Persian Gulf, administered by Bushehr Province) is Iran’s primary oil export terminal. It handles ~90–94% of Iran’s crude oil exports (roughly 1.5–1.6 million barrels per day in recent periods, with surge capacity higher), pipelines from major fields (e.g., Ahvaz, Marun, Gachsaran), vast storage (~30 million barrels capacity), and jetties that can load up to 10 supertankers simultaneously in deep water (unlike the shallow mainland coast).
• Economic strangulation: Iran’s government, military (including the IRGC), and war effort depend heavily on oil revenue. Seizing the island would cut off nearly all seaborne crude exports immediately. Unlike airstrikes that could damage infrastructure (and spike global oil prices), control allows the U.S./allies to deny revenue indefinitely while potentially supervising or redirecting flows as leverage. Rebuilding alternative terminals could take 1–2+ years.
• Pressure on the Strait of Hormuz: The island is ~400–500 km northwest of the Strait. Seizing it has been discussed as a way to force Iran to reopen the Strait (which it has blockaded/disrupted in the 2026 conflict, threatening ~20% of global oil/gas flows). It turns Iran’s economic “backbone” into a bargaining chip without needing a full mainland invasion.
• Military/operational platform: Control could enable raids, ISR, or strikes deeper into Iran from a forward base close to the mainland. It also neutralizes Iranian naval/mining assets staged there (U.S. strikes on March 13, 2026, already hit >90 military targets like air defenses, naval base, missile/mine storage—but deliberately spared oil facilities).
• Broader impact: Global markets would feel secondary effects (higher prices, supply risks), but the primary hit is to Iran (and its main buyer, China). Analysts have long called it Iran’s “greatest vulnerability” and a “single point of failure.”
In the current 2026 conflict context, U.S. officials (including via Trump statements and reports) have floated seizure/blockade options as a “Plan B” after airstrikes, with Marine Expeditionary Units and potential 82nd Airborne elements positioned for amphibious/rapid response roles. It would mark a major escalation from air/naval operations to boots-on-the-ground control.
How Iran Could Respond
Iran treats Kharg as a “fortress” and has been actively preparing for exactly this scenario (per U.S. intelligence reporting as of late March 2026). A seizure attempt would likely trigger intense, multi-layered resistance, with risks of high U.S. casualties and regional spillover.
Immediate defensive measures (already underway):
• Fortifications and traps: Additional troops/personnel deployed; anti-personnel and anti-armor mines laid on shorelines and potential landing zones; layered defenses around key sites.
• Air defenses: Extra MANPADS (shoulder-fired SAMs) and other mobile/ground-based systems moved to the island to contest air support or helicopters during an assault.
• Naval/mining threats: Pre-positioned mines in surrounding waters; naval assets for harassment.
If an assault/seizure occurs:
• Direct kinetic response: Heavy use of missiles, drones, rockets, and artillery from the nearby mainland (the island is well within range). Iranian statements vow “deadly,” “relentless,” and “catastrophic” retaliation against any landing forces.
• Asymmetric escalation:
• Intensify Strait of Hormuz disruptions (mines, attacks on shipping).
• Strikes on Gulf Arab states’ oil/LNG infrastructure or U.S. bases (Iran has already accused regional actors of enabling operations and warned of attacks on supporting countries’ vital sites).
• Proxy activation (Houthis, militias in Iraq/Syria) for wider attacks on shipping or energy targets.
• Longer-term: Iran could attempt guerrilla-style resistance on the island or rapid counter-attacks to reclaim it, drawing on experience from the Iran-Iraq War (when the island was bombed but later rebuilt). Full occupation would be logistically challenging for attackers due to proximity to Iranian firepower.
Risks and caveats: U.S. planners note the island’s defenses make it a potential “trap,” with forces exposed to sustained Iranian fire. Any seizure would likely require significant air/naval suppression first and could drive oil prices sharply higher while risking broader war. Iran has signaled it views this as an existential economic threat, so responses would prioritize maximum disruption.
The situation remains highly fluid as of March 26, 2026—U.S. strikes have already degraded military assets on Kharg, but the oil infrastructure stands as the ultimate prize (or pressure point). Official statements from CENTCOM or Tehran would provide the latest indicators.
Trending content
-
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K
