LIVE THREAD: US and Israel vs. Iran, Part Two

[catfish1957]

I trust anything Murphy says about as much as gas station sushi.

I think both Murphy and Mark Kelly both should get a test gig at Leavenworth for Sedition.

Just for shits and giggles.....   and in my POV mostly giggles.

[mystery-ak]

Huge crowds gather in Tehran for pro-regime funeral


People attend a funeral ceremony for the Iranian military commanders who were killed in strikes, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, on Wednesday, March 11, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA via Reuters)

Photos emerged Wednesday showing a massive crowd of Iranians gathering in Tehran for a funeral honoring Iranian military commanders who were killed in the joint U.S.-Israeli conflict.

Abdolrahim Mousavi, the chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, and Mohammad Pakpour, the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), were among those whose funeral ceremonies were being held, according to the website IranWire.

"Mousavi served as one of the highest senior military ranking officials," the IDF said earlier this month.

Pakpour was one of the leaders of the "destruction of Israel" plan, the IDF said.

Fox News Digital’s Rachel Wolf and Brie Stimson contributed to this report.
Posted by Greg Norman-Diamond

[catfish1957]

Huge crowds gather in Tehran for pro-regime funeral

Would love to see just a low B-2 flyover for effect.   

[bigheadfred]

Big splodey at Quds, Iran

https://twitter.com/Defence_Index/status/2031704281284538868

[bigheadfred]

unusual_whales
@unusual_whales
·
39m
BREAKING: Russia is providing Iran with advanced drone tactics learnt in the war in Ukraine to target the US and Gulf states, per WSJ

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/Osint613/status/2031719331290112424

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2031734910621196306

[mystery-ak]

First they said he was dead, then had a leg amputated..now this..

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2031734910621196306

[catfish1957]

First they said he was dead, then had a leg amputated..now this..

Is confusing...  Still I am guessing this dude is still on the left side of the actuarial tables right now. 

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2031687195808141672

[mystery-ak]

No way to verify...

https://twitter.com/RealBababanaras/status/2031728449682067846

[Fishrrman]

Just a few more of Fishrrman's "off-the-wall™" comments...

Remember how Vlad Putin thought he could start a war and have it over in a week or two?
His intended target -- Ukraine -- offered somewhat more resistance than he had planned on.

Same goes with Mr. Trump v. Iran.
This isn't going to be a war that can be "completed" in a few more days at his discretion.
The Iranians -- despite all the hits they've taken -- keep coming back, still firing missiles that are hitting targets throughout the Mideast, putting down mines in Hormuz, etc.

The "Hormuz problem" isn't going to be solved without PHYSICAL control of the shoreline (and internal land as well) for, say, 150 miles in either direction. That's going to require troops, to prevent Iranian naval operations on the coast, and actions by ground troups further inland.

Even if they lose Hormuz, what's to keep the IRGC from firing at ships in the Persian Gulf, before they even GET to Hormuz?

At a given moment, are we just going to halt the air bombardment operations and walk away?
How does that constitute an "unconditional surrender" or "victory"?
(educate me)

One last thought (more off-the-wall than any of them):
Could this conflict require a "nuclear moment" before the IRGC/mullahs finally give it up...?

Sorry if you don't care for this reply.

[DB]

It looks like the old saying that air power alone can't win a war is coming back to haunt Trump. People don't surrender if they're not dying in large numbers.

And in the case of Islamists, they want to go down with the ship as martyrs so surrender is even less likely.

I would have thought our military planners would have taken all that into account.

It is going to take boots on the ground, at a minimum, to account for and remove the enriched uranium - short of regime change which isn't looking likely. Without getting the enriched uranium the mission will be a failure.

[Wingnut]

No way to verify...

https://twitter.com/RealBababanaras/status/2031728449682067846

When they dropped this thing at Eglin AF base it caused quite a stir.  Windows were blown out for miles far away from the blast site. Cows stop giving milk. Men fainted and Labor was induced in pregnant women


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs&t=134s

[BobfromWB]

Just a few more of Fishrrman's "off-the-wall™" comments...

Remember how Vlad Putin thought he could start a war and have it over in a week or two?
His intended target -- Ukraine -- offered somewhat more resistance than he had planned on.

Same goes with Mr. Trump v. Iran.
This isn't going to be a war that can be "completed" in a few more days at his discretion.
The Iranians -- despite all the hits they've taken -- keep coming back, still firing missiles that are hitting targets throughout the Mideast, putting down mines in Hormuz, etc.

The "Hormuz problem" isn't going to be solved without PHYSICAL control of the shoreline (and internal land as well) for, say, 150 miles in either direction. That's going to require troops, to prevent Iranian naval operations on the coast, and actions by ground troups further inland.

Even if they lose Hormuz, what's to keep the IRGC from firing at ships in the Persian Gulf, before they even GET to Hormuz?

At a given moment, are we just going to halt the air bombardment operations and walk away?
How does that constitute an "unconditional surrender" or "victory"?
(educate me)

One last thought (more off-the-wall than any of them):
Could this conflict require a "nuclear moment" before the IRGC/mullahs finally give it up...?

Sorry if you don't care for this reply.

Sounds about right. 47 for all his acumen in construction, is not much in foreign policy or war. War always requires someone's troops on the ground. There is absolutely no way to hold territory without them, no way to verify the enemy is no longer in control.

Unconditional surrender requires absolute and overwhelming force from every direction, including on the ground.

I'm beginning to imagine someone sold 47 a bill of goods or that he overruled those that knew better. Pick one. Either way this will not turn out well.

Sorry if you don't care for this reply™[ registered to Fishrrman ].

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2031748734200037687