Iranian officials say their President Pezeshkian will be releasing an "important letter" to the American people in "a few hours."
Is the regime in Iran soon to be toast?
- Thread starter Sybertiger
- Start date
Trump has threatened to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine unless Europe joins in reopening the Strait of Hormuz — FT
ISRAELI BROADCASTING AUTHORITY: US-IRAN NEGOTIATIONS NOT PROGRESSING POSITIVELY
"Tonight in my State of the Nation address, I will explain how disgusted I am with NATO."
OOppppssss
OOppppssss
Last edited:
I dunno... he seems a bit overly optimistic to me...
I might have more faith if Trump wasn't so insistent on pissing off our allies every step of the way in his 2nd term... a couple of weeks ago "Fonzie" thought we might be a bit late asking for help from allies...
Retired admiral: ‘We might have been a little late’ asking for help in Strait of Hormuz
“Well, I definitely think we want allies,” Vice Adm. John W. “Fozzie” Miller told “On Balance” host Leland Vittert on NewsNation, The Hill’s sister network. “You always fight better with allies. The only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.
Vittert asked why the allies “aren’t answering the call?” Miller replied: “Well, I’m not sure they won’t answer the call. They haven’t yet. We might have been a little late with picking up the phone and calling them.”
“But I think at the end of the day the world’s going to realize that the way we can get the Gulf open the fastest is through a coalition effort,” the retired admiral added.
Miller later said “there’s a lot of work to be done” in removing Iranian defenses from the country’s coast along the Strait of Hormuz before it can reopen. He added “that anything that we get from a coalition” is going to be “helpful” if warships escort tankers amid Iran’s retaliatory attacks.
Just a little late with picking up the phone and calling them? seems like it was worse than that to me... Trump has been berating, taunting, insulting, and threatening (most of) our allies for over a year.
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 18,463
- 30,973
US amassing air assault forces near Iran. Islands to be taken?
Binkov's Battlegrounds
Apr 1, 2026 Binkov's Podcasts
Our newest video talks about possible US ground troops being prepped for attacking Iran. How many there may be, what kind and what are the likely missions? As well as what are the hardest and easiest targets to take?
This video from Binkov's Battlegrounds explores the recent US military movements near Iran and analyzes the potential objectives and challenges of a hypothetical ground-based assault.
Key troop deployments and logistics:
Binkov's Battlegrounds
Apr 1, 2026 Binkov's Podcasts
Our newest video talks about possible US ground troops being prepped for attacking Iran. How many there may be, what kind and what are the likely missions? As well as what are the hardest and easiest targets to take?
This video from Binkov's Battlegrounds explores the recent US military movements near Iran and analyzes the potential objectives and challenges of a hypothetical ground-based assault.
Key troop deployments and logistics:
- Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs): The US has been deploying elements of the 31st and 11th MEUs to the region (0:01-0:53).
- Army/Airborne Assets: Large transport plane activity (C-17s) suggests the mobilization of several elite units, including the 82nd Airborne Division, the 75th Ranger Regiment, and Special Operations forces (1:27-2:47).
- Total Force Potential: If all units are fully deployed, the US could have between 5,000 and 13,000 troops prepared for air assault operations (3:31-5:51).
- Island Seizure: A primary goal may be capturing islands in the Persian Gulf to secure the Strait of Hormuz. Targets include Car Island, Abu Musa, Farur, and the Tun Islands (6:00-6:37).
- Strategic Infrastructure: The US appears focused on seizing runways and military installations intact to facilitate future logistics, with support from Air Force rapid-repair units (6:52-7:20).
- Deep Operations: The video notes the potential for high-risk special operations deep inside Iran, such as seizing uranium stashes or securing shipping lanes against Houthi threats (9:41-10:48).
- Counterattacks: The most significant danger identified is the sustained threat of Iranian drone and missile strikes against dispersed US ground forces (11:08-11:25).
- Deployment Timeline: Depending on shipping speeds and organizational readiness, potential operations could commence between the start and middle of April (8:54-9:01).
- Objective: The overall strategy might be to exert enough pressure to force Iran to negotiate, specifically by threatening its oil exports and power projection capabilities near the Strait of Hormuz (12:30-12:53).
Wow... Putin must be so pleased... Trump letting him sell expensive oil... Trump talking about leaving NATO... and now Trump threatening to cutoff weapons to Ukraine...
BREAKING: Iran's President Pezeshkian has officially released an "open letter" to the American people.
The letter states:
1. Iran harbors "no enmity" toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries
2. Recent US actions are "aggression" targeting civilians and infrastructure, setting up for long-term global instability
3. "What Iran has done, and continues to do, is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense"
4. The decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal was "made by the US government"
5. "Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before
"Pezeshkian concludes by saying, "the choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors."
We now await Trump's address to the US at 9 PM ET.
Full Letter
The letter states:
1. Iran harbors "no enmity" toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries
2. Recent US actions are "aggression" targeting civilians and infrastructure, setting up for long-term global instability
3. "What Iran has done, and continues to do, is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense"
4. The decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal was "made by the US government"
5. "Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before
"Pezeshkian concludes by saying, "the choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors."
We now await Trump's address to the US at 9 PM ET.
Full Letter
IRAN'S FULL "OPEN LETTER" TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
"To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:
Iran—by this very name, character, and identity—is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.
The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness—not a temporary political stance.
For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful— the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.
Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran—a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done—and continues to do—is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.
Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état—an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalization of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression—twice, in the midst of negotiations—against Iran.
Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled—from roughly 30% before the Islamic Revolution to over 90% today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.
At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.
This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?
Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the U.S. government—choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.
Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure—including energy and industrial facilities—directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.
Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar—shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?
Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today
I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation—an integral part of this aggression—and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants—educated in Iran—who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?
Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures—resilient, dignified, and proud."
"To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:
Iran—by this very name, character, and identity—is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.
The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness—not a temporary political stance.
For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful— the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.
Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran—a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done—and continues to do—is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.
Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état—an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalization of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression—twice, in the midst of negotiations—against Iran.
Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled—from roughly 30% before the Islamic Revolution to over 90% today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.
At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.
This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?
Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the U.S. government—choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.
Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure—including energy and industrial facilities—directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.
Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar—shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?
Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today
I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation—an integral part of this aggression—and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants—educated in Iran—who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?
Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures—resilient, dignified, and proud."
That's all fine and dandy, but to be fair...
Unless I'm mistaken, the vast majority of the Iranian people ain't to happy with the Iranian regime, Mr. Pezeshkian.
This just in: NATO is a defensive group. We started something so no one is obligated to join. We want help? Go and activate Article 5 to drag everyone in. Otherwise, shut up and deal with the mess you started.
Last edited:
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 18,463
- 30,973
"They Didn't Think This Through" - Ex CIA Operator, Mike Baker
Triggernometry
In this episode of Triggernometry, former CIA operator Mike Baker provides a critical assessment of the current geopolitical conflict involving Iran, the United States, and the broader Middle East. Baker argues that the situation may not have been well-thought-out and explores the complexities of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy.
Key themes from the discussion include:
Triggernometry
In this episode of Triggernometry, former CIA operator Mike Baker provides a critical assessment of the current geopolitical conflict involving Iran, the United States, and the broader Middle East. Baker argues that the situation may not have been well-thought-out and explores the complexities of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy.
Key themes from the discussion include:
- The Iranian Nuclear Program and Regime: Baker discusses the Iranian regime's long-term instability in the region, their refusal to negotiate in good faith, and the intelligence challenges associated with their nuclear and missile programs (1:08 - 3:26).
- The Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz: The discussion emphasizes that the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's "trump card." Closing this strait would have massive global economic consequences, impacting oil flows, LNG supplies, and fertilizer trade (10:37 - 12:24).
- The Risks of Escalation: Baker warns about the dangers of military escalation, noting that the Iranian regime is not "stupid" and has likely gamed out scenarios to inflict costs on the U.S. and its allies, including potential drone attacks on infrastructure (21:10 - 26:15).
- Lone Wolf Terrorism: A significant portion of the interview focuses on the threat of lone-wolf individuals who may be triggered by current events to carry out acts of terrorism, which Baker views as a major, difficult-to-mitigate risk (42:46 - 44:09).
- U.S. Political Pressures: Baker notes that U.S. domestic politics, including the upcoming midterm elections, significantly influence the administration's decision-making and willingness to avoid long-term entanglements (12:03 - 16:58).
- Ukraine and Global Distraction: In his final analysis, Baker expresses concern that the global focus on the Middle East has caused the world to lose sight of the ongoing, high-stakes conflict in Ukraine, where Russia shows no sign of backing down (1:08:14 - 1:10:38).
Or at the very least try to admit maybe we were a bit unfriendly, even make some kind of excuse for that behavior to save face, and try to patch things up to move forward. Trump? probably not
United Arab Emirates ready to help US open Strait of Hormuz by force: report
The United Arab Emirates is preparing to help the US fight Iran and open the Strait of Hormuz by force, Arab officials said.
nypost.com