- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Erickson gives a reality check on Iran War
Posted on 3/12/26 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 3/12/26 at 11:42 pm
From his afternoon newsletter today:
quote:
the campaign in Iran is expected to last for weeks longer. The president originally said it could last up to five weeks. Now, I want to put this in perspective for you. If you weren't listening to the full show, let me give you the synopsis here.
The military is blowing up about one thousand targets a day combined between Iran and the United States. The US is doing about five hundred. Israel is doing about five hundred. For perspective, that's the exact same daily rate as Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, both of which lasted approximately forty days before evolving into other campaigns. The Libyan operation that NATO engaged in lasted seven months.
People, a two-week operation isn't going to change much, and no one in the administration thought otherwise, nor did anyone in the Israeli government think otherwise. The propaganda and anti-American, anti-Israel spin online is just that—it's spin.
Every operation, the air campaign that goes into the situation has lasted at least forty days. This one's going to be no different. Anyone expecting magical, miraculous results in a week and a half has not paid attention to history. But that's a lot of people online who are suddenly experts on Iran, having been experts on elections, having been experts on COVID, having been experts on British politics, having been experts on Brexit, having been experts on everything else. Suddenly they're experts now. And guess what? They're continuing to get everything wrong.
The Guardian—not exactly a conservative publication—says the Iranian ayatollah is reportedly in a coma and has had a leg amputated, and that all the statements that have come out from the ayatollah have actually come out from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. They're using this transition of power to an all-but-dead Ayatollah as a way to continue power. But actually, it's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that has taken over.
Now, the media spin is that we've radicalized the Iranians who were developing nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and funding terrorists around the world, and somehow, suddenly they're radicalized after having been radicalized before, which is a bunch of nonsense.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is going to have to be severely broken. It hasn't happened yet. But as I mentioned, we're only twelve days in. And typically these air campaigns take a minimum of forty days, so be patient.
11
Posted on 3/12/26 at 11:56 pm to prplhze2000
Well if prplhze2000 on Tigerdroppings says some guy named Erickson said it in some news letter that’s posted somewhere or something then I believe it to be 100% the truth
Fantastic work and thanks for the info
Fantastic work and thanks for the info
Posted on 3/13/26 at 3:39 am to prplhze2000
We can starve them if they prefer.
I’d be very careful if I were them. Sometimes it’s not wise to project strength when you have none.
We can make this worse with a snap of the finger. How far do yall want to take it? We are already here so let’s go all the way if you boys think yall got it.
They don’t.
I’d be very careful if I were them. Sometimes it’s not wise to project strength when you have none.
We can make this worse with a snap of the finger. How far do yall want to take it? We are already here so let’s go all the way if you boys think yall got it.
They don’t.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 3:59 am to prplhze2000
quote:
For perspective, that's the exact same daily rate as Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, both of which lasted approximately forty days before evolving into other campaigns.
Both of those operations involved ground invasions. Roughly 34 infantry and armored divisions took part in the invasion during Operation Desert Storm, seven of which were American.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:33 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Both of those operations involved ground invasions. Roughly 34 infantry and armored divisions took part in the invasion during Operation Desert Storm, seven of which were American.
Exactly.
It can be done, but it’ll either be done with a deal with the IRGC, a ground invasion or it won’t be done at all.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 6:51 am to jizzle6609
quote:it really is dictator brainwashing. Hiding the outside world and pumping propaganda.
I’d be very careful if I were them. Sometimes it’s not wise to project strength when you have none.
It's like north Koreans thinking they are some kind of legit military power. Other than their nuke, they got nothing. Chyna does the same thing though they do have equipment, but the everyday Chinaman probably thinks no one in the world can match them.
Imagine what Venezuelans thought when they saw our massive carriers pull up off shore, after years of being told they can take in anyone.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 6:57 am to Rekrul
frick that squishy piece of shite.
But, he's not necessarily wrong in this instance.
But, he's not necessarily wrong in this instance.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 6:58 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Both of those operations involved ground invasions. Roughly 34 infantry and armored divisions took part in the invasion during Operation Desert Storm, seven of which were American.
Ok...which in no way contradicts his point that expecting results from an air only campaign in less than 2 weeks is unrealistic and not a stated expectation.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 7:40 am to prplhze2000
quote:
For perspective, that's the exact same daily rate as Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, both of which lasted approximately forty days before evolving into other campaigns.
“Evolved into other campaigns” is classy way to describe the worst American blunder since WWII.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 5:53 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
Ok...which in no way contradicts his point that expecting results from an air only campaign in less than 2 weeks is unrealistic and not a stated expectation.
Oh, I know. However, the only reason those operations were ultimately deemed successful is because armor and infantry came in and left no doubt they had been beaten. You cannot defeat an enemy with airpower alone.
Posted on 3/13/26 at 7:02 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
You cannot defeat an enemy with airpower alone.
Wouldn’t that depend on what you take out, and the prospect of the population getting involved? Especially it it’s painful in everyday life.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:42 am to Good Times
quote:
Wouldn’t that depend on what you take out, and the prospect of the population getting involved? Especially it it’s painful in everyday life.
We flattened Germany by carpet bombing all of their major cities. The entire country was in ruins by the spring of 1945, and yet many within Germany believed in the final victory almost to the bitter end. American, British, French, Canadian, and Russian troops still had to overwhelm the country with hundreds of infantry and armored divisions to bring them to their knees.
Strategic bombing has been proven to have very little negative psychological effects on the population. We first saw that with Britain in 1940-41. If anything, the bombing of their cities enhanced their resolve to fight on. Misery loves company and when everyone is equally miserable people tend to band together.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 7:45 am
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:45 am to ned nederlander
Um, Bush the Elder didn't allow Desert Storm to escalate into something else.
The problem was Cheney and his son saw 9/11 as an opportunity to go after Iraq when Iraq was not a real threat to us.
The problem was Cheney and his son saw 9/11 as an opportunity to go after Iraq when Iraq was not a real threat to us.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:51 am to udtiger
quote:
frick that squishy piece of shite.
But, he's not necessarily wrong in this instance.
I have no idea who that is but his description of where we are right now is a helluva lot more accurate than Trump's.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:55 am to Flats
IMO grabbing Kharg Island and grabbing them by the economic balls is where this is headed.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:00 am to Flats
quote:
I have no idea who that is but his description of where we are right now is a helluva lot more accurate than Trump's.
JFC
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:13 am to ned nederlander
quote:Wow!
the worst American blunder since WWII
Vietnam and Korea would like a word.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:17 am to prplhze2000
Once we occupy Kharg Island and seize the oil its over
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:20 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Both of those operations involved ground invasions. Roughly 34 infantry and armored divisions took part in the invasion during Operation Desert Storm, seven of which were American.
And 10 years later, we came back... with ground troops.
We're not going to bomb Iran into submission. At some point, we're either going to have to call it a day and most likely leave the theocracy to recover, let Israel invade which would likely lead to global religious war or commit ground troops ourselves. And that would be a quagmire on several levels.
I find it very hard to believe we have a coherent plan with this.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:27 am to tide06
This is what grok has to say about US military deaths in this war:
Estimated US Troop Casualties
Casualty projections for a full regime-change war vary widely based on scope, but they are grim.
In the current limited conflict (air strikes and retaliations as of March 14, 2026), US deaths are low: at least 8 service members reported killed so far, with more wounded. Escalating to ground operations would dramatically increase this.
• For a limited invasion (e.g., securing borders or key sites):
Estimates range from 10,000–20,000 US deaths, drawing from hypothetical scenarios where forces push to Tehran amid urban warfare and asymmetric attacks.
• For full occupation: Older RAND studies and recent analyses suggest 500,000–1,000,000 troops needed, with fatalities potentially exceeding 50,000–100,000 over years, factoring in IEDs, missiles, and insurgency.
This dwarfs Iraq War losses (about 4,500 US deaths) due to Iran’s stronger military and terrain.
Public tolerance for casualties is a factor; surveys show Americans might accept high Iranian civilian deaths to minimize US losses, but political support wanes with rising body counts.
Overall costs could reach $100 billion or more, with global economic ripple effects from oil disruptions.
Many experts advocate de-escalation over pursuit of total victory, given the risks.
Estimated US Troop Casualties
Casualty projections for a full regime-change war vary widely based on scope, but they are grim.
In the current limited conflict (air strikes and retaliations as of March 14, 2026), US deaths are low: at least 8 service members reported killed so far, with more wounded. Escalating to ground operations would dramatically increase this.
• For a limited invasion (e.g., securing borders or key sites):
Estimates range from 10,000–20,000 US deaths, drawing from hypothetical scenarios where forces push to Tehran amid urban warfare and asymmetric attacks.
• For full occupation: Older RAND studies and recent analyses suggest 500,000–1,000,000 troops needed, with fatalities potentially exceeding 50,000–100,000 over years, factoring in IEDs, missiles, and insurgency.
This dwarfs Iraq War losses (about 4,500 US deaths) due to Iran’s stronger military and terrain.
Public tolerance for casualties is a factor; surveys show Americans might accept high Iranian civilian deaths to minimize US losses, but political support wanes with rising body counts.
Overall costs could reach $100 billion or more, with global economic ripple effects from oil disruptions.
Many experts advocate de-escalation over pursuit of total victory, given the risks.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News