By John Q. Hosedrinker Following Operation Epic Fury, Tehran attempted to leverage its influence over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, leading the US Treasury to issue a sanctions waiver aimed at stabilizing oil markets. While initially intended as a broad policy, this waiver framework effectively facilitated Indian refiners’ purchase of sanctioned Russian crude, redirecting it away from China. This model was then extended to Iranian crude, with India emerging as the primary buyer, thereby disrupting China’s dominance and recalibrating pricing dynamics without formally lifting sanctions. This strategic repositioning of India within both energy and technological supply chains suggests a renewed effort by Washington to reshape the global order and potentially influence Iran’s geopolitical alignment.
Read the original article here
The news that the US may deploy up to 17,000 troops near Iran signals a significant escalation, suggesting a new phase in the ongoing conflict. This development conjures images of a Pandora’s box being opened, with concerns that the troop numbers could rapidly increase, perhaps from 17,000 to 25,000, then 50,000, and so on, implying a potentially uncontrolled expansion of military involvement. This situation is being framed by some as an “Operation Epic Fuck up,” raising questions about when a perceived “golden age” for America might begin amidst such turmoil.
The initiation of such a large troop deployment, particularly if it leads to a draft, is a source of deep concern for many, especially for those with family in the military. This is not a scenario to be taken lightly, as a ground invasion attempt against a fortified nation like Iran, without adequate backup and facing a military trained for decades against the US and Israel, could result in a devastating number of casualties. The comparison to Vietnam is frequently made, with the argument that this situation could be significantly worse due to the lack of readily available “bullet sponge” allied troops as seen in that conflict, and the inherent strength and preparedness of Iran’s military, which is described as possessing “actual bombs” and occupying terrain that is “4x times the size of Iraq and more mountains.”
The economic implications of such a military buildup are also a major worry, with predictions of oil prices soaring to $200 a barrel and the potential for a worldwide recession, or even a depression, to be brewing. The idea that American troops might be sent into harm’s way, not for their country in a noble cause, but potentially for the interests of a president and a “billionaire elite,” is a deeply unsettling thought for many. This raises the question of who these soldiers are truly fighting for, and whether they should consider refusing to fight in what is perceived as an “illegal war.”
The discussion around the “phase” of the war also raises poignant questions. If a phase involves constant backing down from threats and an inability to maintain territorial control, it hardly resembles a successful campaign. The irony of a “FIFA Peace Prize winner” initiating such a massive military deployment is not lost on observers. The sentiment that “we already won” is met with stark disbelief as the reality of a potential large-scale conflict looms. There’s a growing sense that the current trajectory is leading towards a “target rich environment,” with speculation about what phase comes after a supposed “winning phase.”
Concerns are being voiced about the potential for mass casualties among American troops, particularly the “incredible 18 and 19-year-old people,” and the chilling possibility of a nuclear escalation. The swift shift in some political factions from advocating for “no new wars” to supporting a ground invasion of Iran is seen as a stark contradiction. The argument is made that leaders, like “Donny dip shit,” who do not have to make personal sacrifices, are essentially treating soldiers as “meat into the grinder.” This leads to the grim prediction of an incoming draft, with individuals aged 18-42 being urged to be ready.
The strategic decisions surrounding troop deployment, such as the repositioning of aircraft carriers like the USS George H. W. Bush, suggest a deliberate and potentially sustained military presence. The question of how troops will be protected from advanced threats like drones is also a critical, and seemingly overlooked, point of concern. The idea of sending other agencies, like ICE, or specific political figures to the front lines, while perhaps intended as satire, highlights the widespread dissatisfaction and distrust surrounding the potential conflict.
The prospect of a protracted conflict is acknowledged, with some sarcastically suggesting that this new war will only last “a few years, decades tops,” a nod to the notion of “forever wars” that some leaders previously claimed to oppose. The sheer scale of Iran’s potential military response is acknowledged, with casual references to “1 Million” casualties as if it were a mere “rookie number” for the US, underscoring the terrifying potential human cost. The fear is that this situation is “going to be horrific,” with parallels drawn to World War I due to the escalating nature of the conflict.
The political alignment of supporters of such a deployment is noted, with observations that “MAGA supports this,” and that this is “on brand” for a Republican president to initiate an “endless war in the Middle East.” The constant increase in troop numbers is a red flag for many, who recall predictions that a different administration would lead the US to war. The plea to “just pull out and leave” reflects a desperate desire to avoid a costly and potentially devastating conflict, with the stark observation that with no more jobs, the nation might as well “start killing off your population.” The consensus among many is that this situation “will be Vietnam levels of bad,” and that “this is not going to end well.”