A link with a helpful description could also go to malware or a rickroll
Thanks, YMMV but none of those seem as blatant to me as Trump’s reneging on the JCOAP, or imposing tariffs on countries with which he had signed (himself!) free trade agreements.
Moderating:
This thread is supposed to be for the discussion of NEW EVENTS IN THE ONGOING CONFLICT ONLY.
It is not to post cute links.
It is not to discuss blind links or rickrolls or malware.
It is not to discuss “what ifs”.
If you are not posting about a current happening in this conflict, you’re in the wrong thread.
This isn’t bombing, but it does seem like a potential escalation in the conflict between the US and Iran, if suspicions bear out:
(Gift link)
US Sees Iran as Likely Behind Cyberattack on Minnesota Water Systems
From the article:
Investigators believe a cyberattack this week on dozens of municipal water systems in Minnesota was probably the work of Iranian hackers, according to U.S. and state officials and others familiar with the matter, a potential act of aggression that comes at a precarious moment in the U.S. war against Iran.
Officials cautioned that they had not definitively determined who was responsible for the attack and that the preliminary assessment could change as the authorities collected more technical data.
They also warned that the hackers could be attempting to pose as Iran-based in an effort to ratchet up tensions between the two countries, though former intelligence officials said such a scenario was unlikely.
A scary new aspect of this war, if found to be true.
@Aspenglow I posted over in the cluster thread Trump’s own suspicions. He blames Governor Walz for it.
And now he’s complimenting Iran’s military.
They must be tough if they’re able to do what they’re doing after being “utterly destroyed” by the US military.
Good. I don’t think this aspect of Iran’s response is getting enough coverage, myself. I recall seeing in the article I linked to that there are suspicions that Minnesota wasn’t the only state attacked, though the Times didn’t list the others.
Of course he does. 
Trump wants Iran and Oman to make a deal to control the Strait of Hormuz with tolls:
So Trump started a war for no reason, lost the war, and handed over control of the Strait of Hormuz to Iran, indefinitely.
Great job! For those who supported this war, was this all worth the cost in lives lost and billions spent?
Are you asking Netanyahu?
Here’s updated reporting (Reuters via Yahoo! News) on how the US is running low on missiles:
In the 1980’s Tom Clancy wrote a novel with a war scenario where the munitions were being expended at a much faster rate than expected. In the 90’s during the first Gulf War, analysts found that Mr. Clancy was correct in his prediction that this would happen. I assume this continued to be true in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts although I don’t recall any specific stories about it (however according to five seconds of research, it did happen in both conflicts).
It’s not a new phenomenon. The same thing happened at the beginning of WWI and probably other wars as well.
Iraq II and Afghanistan were very different wars. There wasn’t as much threat from long-range missiles once the countries were mostly occupied. The problems became those of occupying troops being targeted by ambushes, and later IEDs.
But this new war with Iran is fundamentally different from all of them. Essentially no ground warfare, so it’s all missiles and drones, and that’s going to suck up interceptors like crazy. And Iran’s weapons are far cheaper and faster to build, so even if they can only maintain a fraction of their pre-war production capacity, even that small part is probably enough to suck up all the Patriot missiles the US can produce.
And of course, these developments would have been absolutely impossible for military strategists to wargame out prior to the conflict. /s
Yet again planning to fight the last war.
Iran issues demands for re-opening the Strait of Hormuz:
In a statement, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said the U.S. must permanently end the war with Iran and its armed allies in the region, as well as vow to never threaten Iran again. The U.S. must also lift the naval blockade of Iranian ports and withdraw its military from the area, per the statement. The U.S. needs to “completely compensate” Iran for war damage, lift sanctions and “unconditionally” release frozen assets, as well.
So, in other words, the US must (nearly) unconditionally surrender to Iran. Not even unjustified, but I would not want to be the flunky trying to explain this to Trump.
All you’d have to say is: You know the demands we’re placing on Iran? Yeah, that. But the other way around.
I have to figure Iran knows Trump will never say yes to all that, no President would. So what is it they’re really looking for? Some subset of that? For Trump to be so apoplectic at these demands that Congress or the Cabinet finally ousts him? Something else?
I see several possibilities:
- It’s a starting offer and they can lower their demands during negotiations.
- They don’t care about Trump being willing to accept it, they have, or think they have, the upper hand and are going Michael Corleone on his ass.
- They plan to negotiate once the U.S. government is sufficiently chastised or in hands or more rational people or both.
- Some combination of all of the above.