Iran Super Thread- Merged

[daftandbarmy]

Once air supremacy is achieved it would be interesting to see what might come next, e.g.,

Trump’s Iran options include special operations raid on nuclear sites

As the Trump administration weighs whether to send ground troops into Iran, one option at the president’s disposal — developed by both US Central Command and the US’ Israeli allies — would send Special Operations units into the country to seize and destroy key nuclear sites.

The option is one among many that is likely to be considered once the focus shifts to actually destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, according to military experts and those familiar with long-developed options on the table.

The US Army’s special missions unit known as Delta Force has long readied a “counter-WMD mission, where their job is to go in and get loose — we call it loose nukes operations — where it could be any fissile material or centrifuges or anything else associated with that, to actually go in and get it and remove it,” said Jonathan Hackett, who served as a US Marine Corps interrogator and a special operations capabilities specialist. “They haven’t had to do that very often in the past, if ever, but they practice that. They’re proficient at that. That is one option that exists on the table that’s probably not widely noted in the press, but does exist,” he said.

Last June, Trump declared Iran’s nuclear facilities to be obliterated, but the facilities — and Iran’s nuclear capabilities — are now the subject of renewed focus. One of Trump’s stated goals in this war is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Trump’s Iran options include special operations raid on nuclear sites

Former government sources and military experts say elite units have long prepared to land in Iran.

www.semafor.com

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I’m sure such a network exists to at least some extent. I question whether Pahlavi would be seen as a democratically legitimate choice by a sufficient portion of Iranins in country. If that support was there I’m bloody sure the US and Israeli intelligence would know and the administration would be giving different signals on his viability.

I guess it depends on whether he is willing to follow his father in the days when he had an elected parliament that had a PM who led the country, and the Shah was just the figurehead Head of State, or if he follows in his father's footsteps as a dictator. In the first case, it would work for the Iranian people - as long as Bozo in Washington let them make their own calls on what is best for the Iranian people and doesn't seek to get pay back for what he did (in the sense of saying "what's in it for me (or the US, but ME more than anything else).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I’m sure such a network exists to at least some extent. I question whether Pahlavi would be seen as a democratically legitimate choice by a sufficient portion of Iranins in country. If that support was there I’m bloody sure the US and Israeli intelligence would know and the administration would be giving different signals on his viability.

This administration likely does not see him as a lap dog, who will grovel at Trump's feet. AI view on his plan

Reza Pahlavi
, the exiled crown prince and son of the last Shah, has proposed a multi-phase roadmap for a free
Iran
known as the Iran Prosperity Project (IPP). He frames himself as a "transitional figure" or a bridge to secular democracy rather than a permanent ruler, stating his mission ends once a national referendum is held to determine the country's future system of government.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation +3

The Three-Phase Transition Plan
The IPP roadmap outlines a transition through the following stages:

• Emergency Phase (100–180 days):
  
  • Focuses on maintaining economic stability, ensuring essential services, and establishing interim governance institutions.
  • Calls for "maximum defections" from the current military and bureaucracy to prevent a power vacuum, while dissolving ideological bodies like the IRGC.
  • Includes a national referendum to decide the fate of former leaders and the preferred form of government (constitutional monarchy or democratic republic)

• Establishment Phase (2–3 years):
  
  • Focuses on building basic democratic institutions and preparing for free, internationally supervised elections.
  • Begins the drafting and ratification of a new constitution.
• Stabilisation Phase:
  
  • Aims for long-term economic reconstruction and reintegration into the global economy.
  • Paves the way for foreign investment, particularly in energy and infrastructure modernization.
    Australian Broadcasting Corporation +5

Key Governance Principles

• Secular Democracy: The plan explicitly calls for the separation of religion and state and the protection of fundamental human rights for all citizens.
• Territorial Integrity: Pahlavi emphasizes maintaining Iran as a unified state, rejecting federalist models proposed by some ethnic minority groups.
• Cyrus Accords: A foreign policy vision inspired by the Abraham Accords, aiming for immediate recognition of Israel and regional cooperation.
• Economic Liberalization: Proposals include privatizing state-owned enterprises (like those held by the IRGC), stabilizing the currency, and encouraging free-market growth.

Criticism and Concerns
Critics, particularly among ethnic minority groups and some democratic activists, have raised concerns that the plan:

• Concentrates Power: Designates Pahlavi as the "Leader of the National Uprising" with the authority to approve appointments and veto decisions during the transition.
• Lacks Clear Endpoints: The non-binding nature of the emergency phase timeframes has led to fears that interim rule could become permanent.
• Sidelining Minorities: By prioritizing a highly centralized government, critics argue it ignores the demands for autonomy or federalism from Iran's diverse ethnic populations

 

[Kirkhill]

Like a warning shot or internal sabotage?

Idle speculation on all fronts.

 

[brihard]

Looks like Kuwait’s Public Institution for Social Security HQ was hit and will be a loss.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030461535475106013

 

[brihard]

Any of our maritime / petroleum-knowledgeable types able to speak to the veracity of this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030493966601425168

 

[Furniture]

Ok, if I were the CO, and there was literally zero chance of us having any impact in helping save Canada, I would chose not to put to sea. I'd look at perhaps relocating to NZ our Australia, but first I'd look at whether or not there was an US assets between Fiji and Aus/NZ.

Reasonable enough, but you'd also hopefully understand that putting to sea at all is a putting your crew in danger. There are no "exercise" boundaries when it's a war. REG at sea 2000km from the "fight" is still in the fight.

Bitter, much?

Not at all. The best leadership I have seen in the CAF has come from the RCN... Conversely, the worst and most detached from reality leadership I have seen in the CAF also came from the RCN.

My personal feelings regarding RCN leadership has no bearing on the reality that the RCN has not actually fought a naval battle since WWII.

What sailors lives are being put at risk by having a P8 put a Harpoon into it from outside their AD envelope? If anything, using a submarine may have been the more dangerous option.

The lives being put at risk are the P* crew's lives, as well as the sub/ship that first found the enemy ship. Assuming the enemy is stupid is a fatal error. If an enemy ship randomly has an MPA show up and demanded their surrender, the enemy is likely to assume there is a ship or sub close. That means the enemy will increase their efforts to find the thing that got them targeted.

Also, harpoon or MK48, the dead sailors won't care what killed them.

I'm not sure what Iran's ability to put a missile into Baltimore or San Diego (new flash, they cant) has to do with bombing a training mission of lightly armed infantry in Sudan thousands of miles from the conflict zone?

The point, which you clearly intended to miss is this; The enemy is the enemy regardless of distance from the front, or state of preparedness. If Iran could hit the San Diego base with missiles, it would be just as legitimate as hitting the base in Bahrain. Despite the fact San Diego is on the other side of the world. Being in the armed forces of the enemy makes you a legitimate target, regardless of the distance of the person from the front.

 

[Kirkhill]

British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales prepped to set sail

The move may raise speculation HMS Prince of Wales could be sent to defend British interests during the Middle East conflict.

www.bbc.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't bother. We could have used you a couple of weeks ago.

Trump tells Starmer: We don’t need your aircraft carriers

US president says he will remember lack of support from ‘our once great ally’ for war he has ‘already won’

www.telegraph.co.uk

And you know you have screwed up when

"Sir Tony Blair said Sir Keir should have backed Mr Trump from the very beginning of the escalating conflict.

"Sir Tony said that when it comes to an ally that is an “indispensable cornerstone of your security, you better show up”, adding “they were [just] asking to use our bases for refuelling”."

....

the current US president had a “pretty fundamental understanding of what the stakes are” in the Middle East.

....

Oh yeah. And they are beefing up defences on Cyprus. They are sending a Merlin.

....

I'm done.