2026 Israel-US vs. Iran conflict [Military updates/News Only]

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Perhaps Iran is being wise in not attacking preemptively as this would give the US the legitimate excuse (like Pearl Harbour) to rally support domestically/internationally against an "evil aggressor" Iran(Trump and Hegseth would be ecstatic)-now counterpunching successfully against a superpower and winning gains like Hormuz is I believe the right thing to do-now if Iran hasn't used these last few weeks of ceasefire to rearm/reorganizeprepare, then that would be utterly stupid and I don't think they are.BTW I read that USA/Israel might be using UAE armed forces to seize Kharg island and generally fight-rumour?and just how numerous and potent is UAE militarily?
I think everyone here should know by now that:

1. The US needs no justification for anything because none of its dogs will do more than whimper and China has not built the power projection to stop it yet. No consequences for bad behavior means that bad behavior will continue.

2. The only language that the US speaks is force. Blow up all its regional bases and radars and now it needs to negotiate; try to negotiate with the US from a percieved position of weakness and it will attack you instead. The people who run the US are not civil; they are primal. It doesn't matter if you did that pre-emptively or if you did it in retaliation. All that matters is the power dynamic on the ground: what you can do to them vs what they can do to you.

3. China and Russia are not foolish enough to pull support for Iran; these countries both know who started it, who's on who's side and what's at stake.
 

another505

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think everyone here should know by now that:

1. The US needs no justification for anything because none of its dogs will do more than whimper and China has not built the power projection to stop it yet. No consequences for bad behavior means that bad behavior will continue.

2. The only language that the US speaks is force. Blow up all its regional bases and radars and now it needs to negotiate; try to negotiate with the US from a percieved position of weakness and it will attack you instead. The people who run the US are not civil; they are primal. It doesn't matter if you did that pre-emptively or if you did it in retaliation. All that matters is the power dynamic on the ground: what you can do to them vs what they can do to you.

3. China and Russia are not foolish enough to pull support for Iran; these countries both know who started it, who's on who's side and what's at stake.

The lack of justification has stopped rest of europe and etc. to join the fight unlike 2003 and pissed off rest of the world while china smiles.

I think Iran simply has decided to hunker down the past few weeks and attacking meant taking them out in the open.

In my perspective, time is on Iran side because US can't rally a sufficient invasion force.
 

Ringsword

Senior Member
Registered Member
The lack of justification has stopped rest of europe and etc. to join the fight unlike 2003 and pissed off rest of the world while china smiles.

I think Iran simply has decided to hunker down the past few weeks and attacking meant taking them out in the open.

In my perspective, time is on Iran side because US can't rally a sufficient invasion force.
You're right as one of the favourite words of the US/westoids other then "regime change" is "allies"-1900 Boxer Rebellion(8 Nations anti-Chinese Alliance,sailing alies' ships like NZ,Canada,Japan through the Taiwan Strait etc-a great error by Trump to alienate the historic allies of the US-may not end well for America
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think Iran simply has decided to hunker down the past few weeks and attacking meant taking them out in the open.

In my perspective, time is on Iran side because US can't rally a sufficient invasion force.

Iran can reportedly withstand the blockade for several months. But the Americans will have their oil storage tanks run dry by late June if not earlier. July 4th + an energy spike will shake even the most oblivious American and they will remember it for the mid terms. When they couldn’t afford to celebrate independences day. They can’t drag it out much longer without backing down. The war has to resume very soon.
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
"Extensive damage"

Nah man, that's very much a total write-off, only good for scrap metal lol.

Nothing that some duck tape and sanding couldn’t fix. The tail will be reattached in no time.

A March 28, 2026, news article reported that one E-3 was struck and damaged while on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

_killuminati_

Captain
Registered Member
I mean NATO is a defensive alliance... I don't think the actual terms are out and about. Defense can be a lot of things too, if Saudi Arabian flagged vessels are trying to run the blockade, do Pakistani assets provide escort? That could easily escalate into a situation where Pakistani jets are blowing up Iranian speed boats.
Highly unlikely. Pakistani military assets have been installed in Saudi since 1960's with very little offensive participation (the most notable being the 1969 Saudi-Yemen War), especially considering Pakistan's own significant Shia population which is generally pro-Iran. Same reason why they refused the Saudi request to join the more recent Saudi-Yemen conflict.

The absence of J-10CE may simply be a matter of lacking the numbers without risking home defence. PAF only has 20 so far. Agreed JF-17 really needs a APKWS analogue to be really effective at killing drones.

Saudi provides the funds, Pakistan provides the force. No need for Saudi to defend Pakistan directly if Pakistan has enough modern kit, and Saudi can always wield the oil weapon against India instead.
I suspect that 20 figure is false. Nobody in the public really knows.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
The lack of justification has stopped rest of europe and etc. to join the fight unlike 2003 and pissed off rest of the world while china smiles.
No, actually the US is equally unjustified in 2003. Anglos don't care about justification, just power dynamic. It's Iran's spectacular missile/drone capabilities that put them off. As the French general Michel Yakovleff said, "Joining the US now is like buying a ticket for the Titanic after it already struck the iceberg."
I think Iran simply has decided to hunker down the past few weeks and attacking meant taking them out in the open.
Yeah, that's clearly what they are doing.
In my perspective, time is on Iran side because US can't rally a sufficient invasion force.
Time is on Iran's side if they are working on a nuke. It is on America's side if Iran's just hiding in the mountains hoping to wait it out while the US makes economic and military moves outside.
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Nato considers mission to reopen Strait of Hormuz​

Nato is considering a mission to unblock the Strait of Hormuz by July.

A small group of allies is discussing sending warships even without a peace deal between the US and Iran.

The plan stands in contrast to a proposed Anglo-French mission, which promised to secure the strait only after a permanent ceasefire.

The waterway, which carries around a fifth of global energy shipments, is being blockaded by both the United States and Iran as they grapple over a deal to end the conflict in the Gulf.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump warned that he may have to resume attacks on the Islamic Republic if its leadership refuses to give up its nuclear programme.

The US president said he had been one hour away from authorising fresh strikes, breaking a month-long ceasefire, before three Gulf leaders requested more time to hammer out a deal.

World leaders are becoming increasingly concerned that the strait’s closure is causing a cost-of-living crisis.

The European Union said on Tuesday that it would release emergency funds to help farmers deal with the soaring costs of fertiliser trapped in the Gulf.

The proposal for a Nato mission to unblock the waterway was first reported by the Bloomberg news agency.

It was said to have the support of a small number of Nato allies but will need unanimous approval to proceed.

Levels of support could grow the longer the strait remains blocked, one diplomat said.
Gen Alexus Grynkewich, Nato’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said he was considering how the alliance could contribute.

“Am I thinking about it? Absolutely. But there’s no planning yet until the political decision is taken,” he said.

With discussions at an early stage, it is unclear how Nato would proceed to unblock the waterway.

Many of its allies are reluctant to move before a ceasefire because it would drag them into a wider war.

The Anglo-French coalition has already pre-positioned a number of warships and other assets to the region in preparation.

In effect, Nato commanders could take over the operation, given that many of its backers are part of the alliance.

But accommodations would have to be made for Spain, which has banned the US from using its military bases and airspace to attack Iran.

Other countries have also been critical of Mr Trump’s war, but have quietly permitted use of their facilities to provide logistical support.

Europe’s initial refusal to help unblock the strait became a point of tension between Nato and Mr Trump, after he demanded they assist in the region.

Mr Trump’s criticism of the alliance has sparked fears that he will refuse to appear at its annual summit scheduled to take place in Ankara, Turkey, in early July.

Any fresh offer for Nato to intervene in the Middle East could be seen as an olive branch to the US president in the hope that he attends to sign off on the mission.

It is unclear whether it will be enough to win him over.

In recent weeks, he has withdrawn 5,000 troops from Germany, and cancelled deployments of long-range Tomahawk missiles to the country. He has also halted plans to send 4,000 soldiers to Poland as he seeks to exact a price for Europe’s perceived lack of support.

Meanwhile, Pakistani officials have been attempting to keep negotiations between Washington and Tehran alive after a number of setbacks.

State media in Iran reported on Tuesday that the country’s negotiators were refusing to give up on the right to enrich uranium in defiance of Mr Trump’s core demands to curtail its nuclear programme.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, was also reported as saying Tehran was demanding the easing of sanctions, the release of frozen funds and the end of the US’s blockade of the strait.

Mr Trump has said Iran’s leaders are begging for a deal to avert the possibility of another series of strikes.

The US president suggested he would order the attacks in the coming days if an agreement was not reached.

“Well, I mean, I’m saying two or three days, maybe Friday, Saturday, Sunday, something, maybe early next week, a limited period of time, because we can’t let them have a new nuclear weapon,” he said.

On Tuesday, Iranian state media reported that Tehran’s latest proposal to the US involved ending hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, the removal of US forces from areas close to Iran, and the payment of reparations for war damage caused since Feb 28.

The proposal appears little changed from the one rejected by Mr Trump last week.
A small group of allies is discussing sending warships even without a peace deal between the US and Iran.

Well. We’re Waiting.
 

GulfLander

Brigadier
Registered Member
The US seized an Iran-linked oil tanker in the Indian Ocean overnight, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing three US officials.

The tanker, known as the Skywave, was sanctioned by the US in March for its role in transporting Iranian oil and was likely loaded with more than a million barrels of crude at Iran’s Kharg Island in February, the report says.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top