chrisocker said:

---

cef88 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

LMCane said:

---

General Michael Flynn:

Iran has crossed a significant threshold. Following confirmed strikes on banking infrastructure inside Iran, Iranian military sources are now threatening retaliatory action against US and Israeli financial centers across the region, with specific signals pointing toward tech sector targets.

….

Regimes that are winning wars fight on the battlefield. They do not threaten banks, financial centers, and technology campuses populated by civilian workers. The decision to escalate toward economic and civilian targets is a calculated gamble by Tehran, an attempt to generate enough global economic disruption and political pressure to force Washington and Jerusalem to stand down before the military situation deteriorates further.

---

---

The second paragraph does contradict the first.

---

Was just about to post this. Glad I am not the only one reading the contradiction. But perhaps the difference is the banking infrastructure that was hit inside Iran was not populated by any civilians? I dunno, just trying to draw a guess as to why one is not like the other.

---

LMCane said:

---

The data center of Bank Sepah, Iran's largest bank responsible for paying salaries to members of the Iranian military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has been hit.

Implication of the damage:
This disruption is expected to prevent them from paying salaries for a period of time, forcing them to find alternative solutions.

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

Nobody is dropping a nuke on Iran - that would be an escalation that would send things entirely off the rails.

For the military folks on here that know things, would protracted deployment of bunker-busters be able to get the job done. What I mean is, days of consecutive bombings to reach whatever depth they have the material stored.

---

The Fall Guy said:

---

Trump says war to end soon. Israel says no timeliness to stop. Pete H and Rubio say its will continue.

Is this all to confuse??

---

cef88 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

LMCane said:

---

General Michael Flynn:

Iran has crossed a significant threshold. Following confirmed strikes on banking infrastructure inside Iran, Iranian military sources are now threatening retaliatory action against US and Israeli financial centers across the region, with specific signals pointing toward tech sector targets.

….

Regimes that are winning wars fight on the battlefield. They do not threaten banks, financial centers, and technology campuses populated by civilian workers. The decision to escalate toward economic and civilian targets is a calculated gamble by Tehran, an attempt to generate enough global economic disruption and political pressure to force Washington and Jerusalem to stand down before the military situation deteriorates further.

---

---

The second paragraph does contradict the first.

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

cef88 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

LMCane said:

---

General Michael Flynn:

Iran has crossed a significant threshold. Following confirmed strikes on banking infrastructure inside Iran, Iranian military sources are now threatening retaliatory action against US and Israeli financial centers across the region, with specific signals pointing toward tech sector targets.

….

Regimes that are winning wars fight on the battlefield. They do not threaten banks, financial centers, and technology campuses populated by civilian workers. The decision to escalate toward economic and civilian targets is a calculated gamble by Tehran, an attempt to generate enough global economic disruption and political pressure to force Washington and Jerusalem to stand down before the military situation deteriorates further.

---

---

The second paragraph does contradict the first.

---

I think you're missing the key difference:

They do not threaten banks, financial centers, and technology campuses populated by civilian workers.

The "banking infrastructure" we and the Israelis hit was operated by the IRGC for the primary benefit of IRGC. Flynn didn't say we bombed bank branches where the tellers worked. Granted, his wording should have been a lot clearer.

---

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

cef88 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

LMCane said:

---

General Michael Flynn:

Iran has crossed a significant threshold. Following confirmed strikes on banking infrastructure inside Iran, Iranian military sources are now threatening retaliatory action against US and Israeli financial centers across the region, with specific signals pointing toward tech sector targets.

….

Regimes that are winning wars fight on the battlefield. They do not threaten banks, financial centers, and technology campuses populated by civilian workers. The decision to escalate toward economic and civilian targets is a calculated gamble by Tehran, an attempt to generate enough global economic disruption and political pressure to force Washington and Jerusalem to stand down before the military situation deteriorates further.

---

---

The second paragraph does contradict the first.

---

I think you're missing the key difference:

They do not threaten banks, financial centers, and technology campuses populated by civilian workers.

The "banking infrastructure" we and the Israelis hit was operated by the IRGC for the primary benefit of IRGC. Flynn didn't say we bombed bank branches where the tellers worked. Granted, his wording should have been a lot clearer.

---

Never underestimate the IRGC's propensity to utilize otherwise *off limits* targets to hide in.

---

LMCane said:

---

akaggie05 said:

---

Why the hell not? Wouldn't be nuking a city and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would be using them as a large scalpel to penetrate down and destroy their uranium stockpile. Big smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere, minimal civilian casualties, and stockpile gone. Anyone who screams escalation in that scenario is looking for a reason to get offended.

---

considering in world history only two atomic weapons have ever been used in combat and that was 80 years ago

not a precedent we want to start up again

---

Iranian state media reports Israeli drones are striking IRGC/Basij checkpoints in Tehran — Fars News

— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) March 11, 2026

akaggie05 said:

---

Why the hell not? Wouldn't be nuking a city and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would be using them as a large scalpel to penetrate down and destroy their uranium stockpile. Big smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere, minimal civilian casualties, and stockpile gone. Anyone who screams escalation in that scenario is looking for a reason to get offended.

---

NEW:

🇮🇷🇷🇺 Iranian IRGC commander warns they that they have 100 m/s underwater missiles and they are ready to use them

He claims 'only two countries have them — Russia, the manufacturer, and us' pic.twitter.com/pkc6wLdRqd

— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) March 11, 2026

twk said:

---

akaggie05 said:

---

Why the hell not? Wouldn't be nuking a city and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would be using them as a large scalpel to penetrate down and destroy their uranium stockpile. Big smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere, minimal civilian casualties, and stockpile gone. Anyone who screams escalation in that scenario is looking for a reason to get offended.

---

I'm no expert, but I don't think that a nuclear weapon would do the job as well as conventional bunker busting bombs. If our bunker busters won't do it, nukes probably won't help.

This may be a deal where you have to send in a special forces unit either to seize and remove the stuff, or ensure demolition of the stie in a way that it would be impossible to access.

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

Nobody is dropping a nuke on Iran - that would be an escalation that would send things entirely off the rails.

For the military folks on here that know things, would protracted deployment of bunker-busters be able to get the job done. What I mean is, days of consecutive bombings to reach whatever depth they have the material stored.

---

Raiderjay said:

---

The Iranians are giving Baghdad Bob a run for his money.....

We have only used our old missiles, wait till we use the new ones!
We have killed hundreds of Americans and zionists!
We will shut down the straight of hormuz!

Now....We have super duper underwater missiles that can travel 100m/s!

NEW:

🇮🇷🇷🇺 Iranian IRGC commander warns they that they have 100 m/s underwater missiles and they are ready to use them

He claims 'only two countries have them — Russia, the manufacturer, and us' pic.twitter.com/pkc6wLdRqd

— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) March 11, 2026

---

akaggie05 said:

---

Why the hell not? Wouldn't be nuking a city and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would be using them as a large scalpel to penetrate down and destroy their uranium stockpile. Big smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere, minimal civilian casualties, and stockpile gone. Anyone who screams escalation in that scenario is looking for a reason to get offended.

---

jwhaby said:

---

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/11/iran-war-may-force-us-to-shift-missile-defenses-from-south-korea-seoul-says/

This article is claiming that the US is moving some of its THAAD missile defense systems from South Korea to the Middle East. Didn't expect this with how well things seem to be going.

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

twk said:

---

akaggie05 said:

---

Why the hell not? Wouldn't be nuking a city and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would be using them as a large scalpel to penetrate down and destroy their uranium stockpile. Big smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere, minimal civilian casualties, and stockpile gone. Anyone who screams escalation in that scenario is looking for a reason to get offended.

---

I'm no expert, but I don't think that a nuclear weapon would do the job as well as conventional bunker busting bombs. If our bunker busters won't do it, nukes probably won't help.

This may be a deal where you have to send in a special forces unit either to seize and remove the stuff, or ensure demolition of the stie in a way that it would be impossible to access.

---

My thinking is that A-bombs air burst over the target. But to be fair, that could be outdated thinking based solely on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

Nobody is dropping a nuke on Iran - that would be an escalation that would send things entirely off the rails.

For the military folks on here that know things, would protracted deployment of bunker-busters be able to get the job done. What I mean is, days of consecutive bombings to reach whatever depth they have the material stored.

---

The problem is finding it. At this point, I don't think even the Israelis know where it is. That's why the initial post said we need boots on the ground or the widespread destruction of a nuke.

---

akaggie05 said:

---

Why the hell not? Wouldn't be nuking a city and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Would be using them as a large scalpel to penetrate down and destroy their uranium stockpile. Big smoking hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere, minimal civilian casualties, and stockpile gone. Anyone who screams escalation in that scenario is looking for a reason to get offended.

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

Nobody is dropping a nuke on Iran - that would be an escalation that would send things entirely off the rails.

For the military folks on here that know things, would protracted deployment of bunker-busters be able to get the job done. What I mean is, days of consecutive bombings to reach whatever depth they have the material stored.

---

The problem is finding it. At this point, I don't think even the Israelis know where it is. That's why the initial post said we need boots on the ground or the widespread destruction of a nuke.

---

So if the idea is to prohibit Iran from developing a nuke, why not just destroy the means of production? 400+ kilos of enriched uranium is useless if you don't have the facilities to develop it into a viable nuke. I reckon the targeted bombings are taking out all of the Iranian means of production for such.

---