Live Conflict Israel-US vs Iran War (2026)

4MikeEcho said:

imagine what the US public thinks about this: Govt is drawn into the war by Israel in January (or last summer technically) and they have gracefully exited out. So the war for 'helping and protecting Israel' is being fought by US and Israel all of a sudden is out of it and doesn't see Iran as an existential threat that it should be bombing.

Other than the irony behind this, its possible that Israel may have realized its not militarily strong enough to inflict any meaningful damage so at least its deciding to not be attacked.

Click to expand...

The US provides Israel with everything. It cannot survive on it's own.

Sky news investigation of Minab school bombing

Footage shows Iranian missile strikes on the U.S. Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan on the night of July 17–18. The video was filmed by U.S. military personnel. The strikes resulted in the deaths of two American soldiers, with one missing and four wounded. According to The New York Times, the Iranian strikes on U.S. air bases in Jordan damaged 21 Black Hawk helicopters.

4MikeEcho said:

Thats their comparative advantage against superior US weapons. If thats what they devoted their resources to, and is a key part of the doctrine, then why does it matter if the rest of the force doesn't show up.

Thats like saying the US Army and Marines have been worthless to this point.

Click to expand...

The whole reason they find themselves trapped in a corner and being directly bombed by the USA is precisely because their conventional army is near worthless. The fact the American conventional forces are so strong is the reason they can cross half the globe and bomb the shit out of iran directly, while iran cannot touch the USA directly.

The problem with not having a real army is that any force they projected outside of the nation, which kept that nation from directly being bombed was easily defeated. Syria is an example of this. After the Iranians lost Syria, the doors opened to getting directly bombed by Isreal. Not to mention things like the pager incident.

Now the problem with this missile strategy is that it has one play, that play is to create enough cost in the hope that the americans think its not worth it to continue. It has no other real strategy.

The reason Turkiye today is not being directly bombed is because when her conventional forces were called into action they were able to win. Cyprus is an example, Libya is an example, Syria is an example. The doctrines developed by Turkiye were also used by Azerbaijan to defeat Armenia, Armenia was an ally of Iran but because Iranian conventional forces and know how is dogshit, there was nothing they could do for armenia.

i'm not saying these missiles are bad, what im saying is these missiles alone is not good enough.

GoatsMilk said:

The whole reason they find themselves trapped in a corner and being directly bombed by the USA is precisely because their conventional army is near worthless. The fact the American conventional forces are so strong is the reason they can cross half the globe and bomb the shit out of iran directly, while iran cannot touch the USA directly.

The problem with not having a real army is that any force they projected outside of the nation, which kept that nation from directly being bombed was easily defeated. Syria is an example of this. After the Iranians lost Syria, the doors opened to getting directly bombed by Isreal. Not to mention things like the pager incident.

Now the problem with this missile strategy is that it has one play, that play is to create enough cost in the hope that the americans think its not worth it to continue. It has no other real strategy.

The reason Turkiye today is not being directly bombed is because when her conventional forces were called into action they were able to win. Cyprus is an example, Libya is an example, Syria is an example. The doctrines developed by Turkiye were also used by Azerbaijan to defeat Armenia, Armenia was an ally of Iran but because Iranian conventional forces and know how is dogshit, there was nothing they could do for armenia.

i'm not saying these missiles are bad, what im saying is these missiles alone is not good enough.

Click to expand...

This is why the world cannot take Iran seriously.

People think USA just randomly started bullying Iran for no reason at all.

yet, Iran has been calling for the destruction of USA and allies for over 50-years. They even convinced their population that Iran would wipe Israel off the map too.

I am no fan of USA. But, who in their right mind think that's a good idea to provoke such a major superpower humanity has ever seen?

Would Iran even boast such nonsense for decades if they didn't have so much natural resources to fall back on when sanctioned? Doubt it.

50-years no Air Force no Navy just some cheap drones and missiles(albeit quiet effective)

And what do we see today? Iran scared to escalate.

You'd think after having your school children blown into pieces that you reserve the right to escalate. but no. These Mullahs are only brave against trying to bully Azerbaijan and useless Arab kingdoms.

GoatsMilk said:

The whole reason they find themselves trapped in a corner and being directly bombed by the USA is precisely because their conventional army is near worthless. The fact the American conventional forces are so strong is the reason they can cross half the globe and bomb the shit out of iran directly, while iran cannot touch the USA directly.

The problem with not having a real army is that any force they projected outside of the nation, which kept that nation from directly being bombed was easily defeated. Syria is an example of this. After the Iranians lost Syria, the doors opened to getting directly bombed by Isreal. Not to mention things like the pager incident.

Now the problem with this missile strategy is that it has one play, that play is to create enough cost in the hope that the americans think its not worth it to continue. It has no other real strategy.

The reason Turkiye today is not being directly bombed is because when her conventional forces were called into action they were able to win. Cyprus is an example, Libya is an example, Syria is an example. The doctrines developed by Turkiye were also used by Azerbaijan to defeat Armenia, Armenia was an ally of Iran but because Iranian conventional forces and know how is dogshit, there was nothing they could do for armenia.

i'm not saying these missiles are bad, what im saying is these missiles alone is not good enough.

Click to expand...

These missiles are good enough to project power and inflict disporportionate pain where the war is now an issue not localized to the gulf but everybody feels the pain.

The best Army in the world would have only made it as far as Kuwait (via Iraq). It would have not inflicted pain on the Gulf countries or Israel.

Btw, Iraq for all its might and strength of its Republican guard got decimated.

From a military standpoint, they were good to have prioritized their investment in missiles/drones vs. aircraft that cost a lot of money/training, then cost $30K an hour to fly, and would have been easily chewed up as offensive weapons , either as sitting ducks on the ground, or to air defenses in Israel and Gulf countries.

It is also true that it may not have been military genius that led to this sort of investment/focus, and may have been out of pure desperation as they didn't have the means or access to the latest aircraft. Whatever the reason, they are where they are now and its worked out better for them than it did for Iraqis who were never able to power project and got eaten up by an air campaign

The Gulf countries still believe this is WWI: putting a pipeline to Yanbu or to Fujeirah. Iranians don't have to put artillery 20 miles away from these two alternates to threaten them. If Iran weapons can reach Jordan they can reach Yanbu and if they can go south west of Hormuz, they can go south east of Hormuz to Fujeirah. My point is its a fools errand that the Gulf countries think they can by pass Hormuz.

TurkWolf said:

This is why the world cannot take Iran seriously.

People think USA just randomly started bullying Iran for no reason at all.

yet, Iran has been calling for the destruction of USA and allies for over 50-years. They even convinced their population that Iran would wipe Israel off the map too.

I am no fan of USA. But, who in their right mind think that's a good idea to provoke such a major superpower humanity has ever seen?

Would Iran even boast such nonsense for decades if they didn't have so much natural resources to fall back on when sanctioned? Doubt it.

50-years no Air Force no Navy just some cheap drones and missiles(albeit quiet effective)

And what do we see today? Iran scared to escalate.

You'd think after having your school children blown into pieces that you reserve the right to escalate. but no. These Mullahs are only brave against trying to bully Azerbaijan and useless Arab kingdoms.

Click to expand...

what are you smoking: they tore up the MoU. Attacked all the way in Jordan. And I am sure if Israel enters, they will get retaliation.

I am not a fan of IRGC, but I don't think they have fear to escalate. If they had fear to escalate, they should not have attacked the ships trying to transit via Southern Hormuz.

Btw, N. Korea has nuclear weapons and always testing its missiles. They are a threat to the US. Its a false comment that for the last decade Iranians have been calling for US destruction.

If that is the yardstick then US should go after N. Korea that has weapons for use against the US, but just doesn't talk about it

Iranian accounts are talking about a possible Kuwait operation. Americans are poised to go for Kharg or Bender Abbas.

This war affirmed the age old reality: Victory is at the tip of infatryman's bayonet. Everything else is just a complication.

Exclusive: Iran is expected to receive within weeks a first shipment out of up to 400 Chinese-made shoulder-fired air-defense missile launchers, as it rebuilds its defences amid war with the United States


I hope it is true, but as i known it is just another fake news.

CHART OF THE DAY: Iran is trying to impose an intolerable economic cost on Trump via oil prices. by shutting Hormuz.

For now, not only oil prices haven't risen enough in nominal terms to do so, but adjusted by inflation remain at levels that can only be described as moderate.

Iran’s ballistic missile attack on U.S. forces in Jordan marks a strategic shift, signaling a new, dangerous phase in the escalation trap.

Why Jordan? Why now? What's Iran's strategic objective? What's coming next?

Read the full breaking analysis at Escalation Trap Substack.

BREAKING: Iran is set to receive up to 400 Chinese MANPADS in a new $60–70M deal, the precise weapons sales Trump claimed Xi told him China would never make “under any circumstances," with the first shipments arriving within weeks, per Reuters citing three sources.

The contract covers QW-12 and FN-16 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, signed with Hong Kong-based Zhongqing Baoshang as intermediary. Deliveries fly from Urumqi in western China and transit Pakistan.

China said four days ago it “strongly supports Iran in safeguarding its sovereignty, security, and national dignity.”

Five months on: The real cost of the Iran war​

Pentagon’s $37.5bn estimate is ‘tip of the iceberg’, with an analysis by The Telegraph putting true bill at $151.3bn


When Donald Trump launched Operation Epic Fury on Feb 28, he predicted it would last “four to five weeks”.

Five months later, the war in Iran still rages on, leaving American taxpayers to shoulder an ever-growing bill.

Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, acknowledged the conflict had already cost the government at least $37.5bn (£28bn), warning that the Pentagon was running out of money.

Yet the true cost, experts predict, is likely to be far greater and more damaging to the American economy than anyone could have predicted.

“We should consider the $37.5bn figure as the tip of the iceberg,” said Prof Linda J Bilmes, of Harvard University, and one of America’s leading experts on the economics of war. “Most members of Congress don’t take that number seriously.”

Prof Bilmes, who has written two books on the cost of the war in Iraq, said Mr Hegseth’s figure entirely excludes the medium-term and long-term costs of the conflict.

According to an analysis by The Telegraph, the real cost of the war in Iran to the American economy had reached $151.3bn (£113.8bn) by July 24.


If the war continues at the current rate, that figure would climb to $311.3bn by the end of the year.

The impact is already filtering through to consumers. Petrol prices have been 21.7 per cent higher than they would have been without the conflict, while diesel prices have been 36.7 per cent higher.







The price of Brent crude has leapt from extreme to extreme since the war began, frequently topping $100 (£75) per barrel before crashing back down to the high 60s.



Some estimates are substantially higher still. Prof Bilmes said that, once the full cost of the conflict was taken into account, the eventual bill could reach $1tn.

This financial burden is creating a political headache for Mr Trump as he looks ahead to November’s midterm elections.

The conflict has proved unpopular across the political spectrum, and this is likely to show when Americans go to the polls to decide the balance of power in Congress on Nov 3.

Laurel Rapp, director of the US and North America programme at Chatham House and former US state department official, said the cost of the war had left the president facing a “politically perilous moment”.

“A lot of these voters are going to be voting on economic matters, and the economic outlook is not very rosy right now, with high fuel prices and quite high inflation. Those realities will not likely resolve themselves before November,” she said.

Mr Trump’s latest net approval rating also stands at -19.5 per cent, down from around -11 per cent before the start of the war.



The financial burden has been accompanied by mounting human losses.
Eighteen US service members have been killed in the conflict, although the Pentagon officially counts only 14 fatalities because it excludes four troops killed after the ceasefire announced in April.
The Trump administration has faced repeated criticism over the transparency of its reporting on the war’s human toll.
Maziyar Ghiabi, director of the Centre of Persian and Iranian Studies at the University of Exeter, said: “This presidency seems particularly concerned with the way it appears in the public eye.
“That prompts covering up injuries and the destruction of highly costly military assets.”
According to an analysis by The Telegraph, Iran has damaged at least 20 US military sites in the region since the start of the conflict, including three state-of-the-art anti-ballistic missile battery systems at the Al Ruwais and Al Sader air bases in the United Arab Emirates and Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.


Beyond the financial and human toll lies another cost that is harder to quantify: America’s global position.

Analysts say every additional dollar and military asset committed to the Middle East reduces Washington’s ability to deter rivals elsewhere, particularly China and Russia.

“When resources are sent to the Middle East, that means resources are not being sent in the same way to the Indo-Pacific. That’s great news for China,” Ms Rapp said.

“That’s what China wants to see. China wants to see the US unable to resource its Indo-Pacific operations; it wants to see the US’s global standing diminished.”

History suggests the final bill is unlikely to resemble today’s estimates.

“We learned in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that costs have a long tail,” Prof Bilmes said.

The war in Afghanistan lasted 19 years and 10 months and cost an estimated $2.26tn. Spread evenly, its first five months would have cost roughly $47bn – substantially less than the current estimated cost of the Iran conflict across the same period.

Prof Bilmes also noted that in 2001, the US budget was in surplus and Washington spent around 8 per cent of the total budget paying interest on the national debt.

Today, US debt has climbed to 100 per cent of GDP, borrowing costs are higher, and the country spends 15 per cent of its budget on interest payments.

“So the Iran war is likely to have long-term negative fiscal consequences even if we can bring it to an end soon,” she added.

Five months into a conflict Mr Trump predicted would last weeks, the Pentagon’s $37.5bn figure may prove to be only the opening chapter of America’s total bill.

Trump escalating while air defense inventories at critical levels as CSIS shows

This means little protection for
—US bases
— Gulf oil infrastructure
— the region’s drinking water

AKA: Deepening Escalation Trap

Bogeyman said:

Pentagon’s $37.5bn estimate is ‘tip of the iceberg’, with an analysis by The Telegraph putting true bill at $151.3bn

Click to expand...

Bro,
Afghanistan war was far too long. Without any clawing back funds available, it probably cost the US most.

Iraqi wars have been very costly. First one they charged it to the Saudis and Gulf countries (plus it served them so well that at the end of it Japanese economy collapsed and German economy was in tatters leaving US a freehand in world socioeconomics) .
But in the second Iraqi war, as US invaded and took control of Iraq, they siphoned off most of that cost through Iraqi oil sales that they controlled. Plus they printed billions of dollars for Iraqis to trade with, and released that cash in to circulation. Also sold a lot of arms to the gulf.
Hence they clawed back most of that cost.

In Iran war, they provided for Israel. Plus on a daily basis they are spending money all the time. There is no way they can ask the cash strapped Gulf States to fund this war. The only way to claw back what they have spent is if they invade Iran and control their oil. Otherwise they are in deep Sh… (pardon my French!)

Yasar_TR said:

Bro,
Afghanistan war was far too long. Without any clawing back funds available, it probably cost the US most.

Iraqi wars have been very costly. First one they charged it to the Saudis and Gulf countries (plus it served them so well that at the end of it Japanese economy collapsed and German economy was in tatters leaving US a freehand in world socioeconomics) .
But in the second Iraqi war, as US invaded and took control of Iraq, they siphoned off most of that cost through Iraqi oil sales that they controlled. Plus they printed billions of dollars for Iraqis to trade with, and released that cash in to circulation. Also sold a lot of arms to the gulf.
Hence they clawed back most of that cost.

In Iran war, they provided for Israel. Plus on a daily basis they are spending money all the time. There is no way they can ask the cash strapped Gulf States to fund this war. The only way to claw back what they have spent is if they invade Iran and control their oil. Otherwise they are in deep Sh… (pardon my French!)

Click to expand...

The U.S. war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) cost an estimated \(\$2.3\) trillion, with annual operations averaging \(\$52.4\) billion. This total encompasses DOD operations, \(\$143\) billion in reconstruction and aid programs, and long-term expenses like interest on war-related borrowing and veterans' medical care. [1, 2, 3]

IRGC strikes on US military bases in Jordan and Kuwait caused the loss of multiple fixed-wing aircraft, equipment, and buildings, US Central Command still denies this.

Iran war shows China's role in setting the price of oil​

The Iran war has revealed China's enormous power over global oil prices, thanks to its position as the world's largest buyer.

Why it matters: China's reaction to the oil shock — by substantially withdrawing from buying on world markets — helped prevent the worst of the price spikes that experts thought would follow from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Catch up quick: After the U.S. and Israel launched the war on Feb. 28, Chinese crude oil imports dove as prices spiked.

At first, the decline in imports didn't surprise analysts. (China has long been known as a price-sensitive buyer.)
Yes, but: Few expected that China could maintain this low level of oil buying without deeply damaging its domestic economy.

But as the war approaches its sixth month, China has done just that.
By the numbers: Through June, Chinese oil imports remain down over 40% from the previous year.

"I guess the surprise has been just how low Chinese demand can go," said Michal Meidan, head of China energy research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. "But it's been low without impairing the well-functioning of the economy."
How it works: Chinese policymakers have pulled several levers to mitigate the impact of the decline in oil imports, Goldman Sachs analysts say.

Chinese officials tapped into domestic reserves of coal, oil and natural gas for supplies.
They boosted usage of coal and renewables, where the country is less reliant on imports.
And China took advantage of its giant fleet of electric vehicles, reflected by the fact that "despite much lower gasoline consumption, traffic congestion remained relatively stable," Goldman analysts say.
The big picture: Broadly speaking, analysts say that China has taken such steps almost exclusively for the benefit of its domestic economy. But the benefits of those decisions — basically lower global oil prices — have been broadly shared.

What they're saying: "China has been a key player in helping the global economy navigate this crisis," Reid I'Anson, a Houston-based economist at global commodities and shipping consulting firm Kpler, tells Axios.

"They are the major swing demand setter in the global oil market, for sure," says Jane Nakano, senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"China has drastically reduced its net imports of fossil fuels, effectively acting as a shock absorber for global energy prices through reduced demand," Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a report last week.
Caveat: China isn't the only reason that the world economy was able to deal with the energy supply disruptions of the war.

Rich nations released large amounts of oil from their own strategic reserves.
And U.S. energy companies drastically boosted exports to meet global demand.
Connect the dots: Still, China's energy policy — and its ability to keep global prices in check — could be a valuable asset, as it positions itself as a source of stability, often in contrast to current U.S. leadership.

"China is doing this for China, fundamentally," said Ruby Osman, a senior policy advisor on China at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. "But obviously it's not unhelpful for China that it has become a global public good."
What we're watching: Any hints that Chinese buyers are flocking back to global markets. Early indications suggest a bit of a bounce in July purchases.


Based on observations, in recent days the US propaganda apparatus has once again begun intensively distributing articles implicating China in the US-Israel-Iran war — including but not limited to claims that China is supplying weapons to Iran, providing satellite intelligence, offering economic support, or pursuing some long-term plan in East Asia. Generally speaking, this indicates that the US is attempting to shape international舆论 (public opinion) to pressure China and build momentum for some new bullshit sanctions, aiming to suppress Iran's trade with China as much as possible before the next round of broad US attacks on Iran.