2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

NorthKimBestKim said:

I call any carrier 100.000+ tonns as "super carrier".

No, the OG Nimitz just got life extention until next year and it is still active, now on its way against Iran.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"After repairs, the USS Gerald R. Ford is back to operational status in the Eastern Mediterranean".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, Iran is about to get smoked from next week, when all 4 "super" carriers are within striking range. The ceasefire ends in 8 days from now, on 21st of April.

USS Boxer departed from Hawaii 5 days ago, so it will be south of Oman by the next week.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Next week, it's smoke time: Lincoln + Ford + Bush + Nimitz + Tripoli + Boxer and at least 15 Arleigh Burkes + bombers, etc.

Click to expand...

Nimitz literally doesnt even have an air wing attached to it. Its airwing is on USS Reagan

It is extended because by law USN must have 11 carriers and kennedy ford class is being delayes. Nimitz isnt going to do anything but take more money from us treasury

None of your sources say it is going anywhere.

To edit on since I was typing on the phone:

Other sources incline that Ford is going back to CONUS for full maintenance, it had 2 extended deployment which I incline it will. If it stays, I would not be surprised it suffers more catastrophe.

Boxer is indeed sailing towards the theater

So it is Bush and Lincoln CVN + Boxer and Tripoli LHA.
And maybe Ford standing on one leg.

abenomics12345 said:

My guy, to send 1 train (65 cars), or ~30000 barrels of crude oil over the 10000km from Iran to China, the locomotives would consume approximately 5000 BOE of diesel fuel. 1 VLCC trip = 3500 BOE of diesel/bunker for 2 million barrels. Even if you paid for this in yuan its still *checks notes* 5x more expensive to ship oil by rail.



If capacity is the real limitation, and capacity presumably requires infrastructure which presumably is not free ---> rail is costly?



View attachment 173409

Click to expand...

So your previous statement in another thread that NK 30 percent gdp into military is "boss" is also a figure of speech?

another505 said:

Nimitz literally doesnt even have an air wing attached to it. Its airwing is on USS Reagan

It is extended because by law USN must have 11 carriers and kennedy ford class is being delayes. Nimitz isnt going to do anything but take more money from us treasury

None of your sources say it is going anywhere.

To edit on since I was typing on the phone:

Other sources incline that Ford is going back to CONUS for full maintenance, it had 2 extended deployment which I incline it will. If it stays, I would not be surprised it suffers more catastrophe.

Boxer is indeed sailing towards the theater

Click to expand...

So if Iran sinks an US carrier or two, who is breaking this law? Iran or Trump?

plawolf said:

So if Iran sinks an US carrier or two, who is breaking this law? Iran or Trump?

Click to expand...

The dems ofc.

abenomics12345 said:

The idea behind having valuable Chinese assets isn't for them to be shiny and pretty. See below likely scenario @Eventine illustrated. The alternative is to pay a protection fee to Trump - vassals like Korea and Japan can, would you suggest Chinese oil/gas importers also pay the fee to Trump?



Which is why I said this earlier:

Click to expand...

For China, war is always a last resort. China will absolutely not risk war with the United States in the Middle East before it has played all its cards. That place is not China's home turf, and anyone with a little military common sense would not believe that China would confront the United States there!

China does not want to be the world's policeman, so don't assume that China will risk its future to fight the US. Many countries are particularly eager for a direct conflict between China and the US, from which they can profit; Japan is a prime example.

The US may try to extort money, but when it comes to China's surrounding areas, it's no longer up to the US.

Puss in Boots said:

For China, war is always a last resort. China will absolutely not risk war with the US in the Middle East before it has played all its cards. That region is not China's home turf, and anyone with even a basic understanding of military affairs would not believe that China would confront the US there!
China does not want to be the world's policeman, so don't assume that China will risk its future to fight the US. Many countries are particularly eager for a direct conflict between China and the US, from which they can profit; Japan is a prime example.
The US may try to extort money, but when it comes to China's surrounding areas, it's no longer up to the US.

Click to expand...

I agree with you philosophically, but if we assume Trump's 5D Chessmasters are right and Iran was really about choking China's oil supply from the middle east, what is the response function? There isn't enough oil elsewhere to backfill the demand and decarbonization can only go fast to replace middle eastern oil. Power of Siberia 1 is full and Central Asian pipelines cannot increase capacity given upstream production issues. There are very obvious long term solutions on a 3-5 year basis but we are solving for a 6-12 month problem here.

A proportional escalation would be to blockade Taiwan from shipping out chips from TSMC in a 围魏救赵 sense- but again that also is a risk of 'war' in your framing.

My question still stands, does Chinese SOEs pay Trump to pass? Or does it send an escort fleet to tell the US to F off?

My overarching point is that at some point you have to take off the training wheels and gloves and start throwing your weight around. (Circa 2016 in SCS)

I guarantee Trump is going to TACO again. It's just so predictable.

Eventine said:

If this endures for longer than a few weeks of saber rattling and "forcing Iran to the negotiations table," South Korea and Japan will likely get exceptions - once they pay Trump..

Click to expand...

So what? Does that help them get through the Iranian blockade? In the end, they'll still only be able to buy Iranian oil at a massive markup and then pay the Trump toll on top. Their economies, together with that of EU would be obliterated, leaving China as the only major manufacturing power. Iran will still end up benefitting from this situation.

abenomics12345 said:

I agree with you philosophically, but if we assume Trump's 5D Chessmasters are right and Iran was really about choking China's oil supply from the middle east, what is the response function? There isn't enough oil elsewhere to backfill the demand and decarbonization can only go fast to replace middle eastern oil. Power of Siberia 1 is full and Central Asian pipelines cannot increase capacity given upstream production issues. There are very obvious long term solutions on a 3-5 year basis but we are solving for a 6-12 month problem here.

A proportional escalation would be to blockade Taiwan from shipping out chips from TSMC in a 围魏救赵 sense- but again that also is a risk of 'war' in your framing.

My question still stands, does Chinese SOEs pay Trump to pass? Or does it send an escort fleet to tell the US to F off?

My overarching point is that at some point you have to take off the training wheels and gloves and start throwing your weight around. (Circa 2016 in SCS)

Click to expand...

Doesn't this situation just bring us back to last year's tariff war? The US and China haven't reached the point of armed conflict yet; China still has many cards to play.

If China intends to send warships to the Middle East to confront the United States, it would be a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union did not set up a way out for itself at that time, and its status in the international communist movement plummeted in this incident.

If China were to send warships to the Middle East, it would mean that China is willing to go to any lengths, including direct war with the US. This would become an act of China asserting its sphere of influence. Obviously, China has never had this need, so China will not do this. Simply put, it's not worth it!

The difference between the South China Sea and the Middle East, I believe, needs no explanation.

abenomics12345 said:

Edmonton/Hardisty to Mexico is *checks notes* largely flat plains whereas Iran to China is *checks note* highly mountainous. Let alone different rail width. No difference at all. For all your talk about 'real things' you sure love to ignore the difference in gradient of track and geography.

Meanwhile lets also stop all other traffic/cargo on the China-Europe railway since the capacity will be needed for oil. Exports of cars from Chongqing to Europe? Stop it. Solar panels - nah can't do it since the rail will be tied up with tanker cars.



There is no crude by rail from Iran to China for the same reason there is no 300km/hr HSR from Xining to Lhasa because it makes no sense in the real world.

For someone who claims to think about real things - you sure ignored the fact that 1/6th of oil carried will be consumed by the train itself. This is before we even talk about whether there is sufficient pipeline capacity from Xinjiang to the interior or whether there are sufficient refinery capacity in Western China to process, or if these refineries were tuned to process blends from Iran.

View attachment 173412

Click to expand...

You're still struggling to understand the real world: money is fictional, the cost of energy isn't the energy itself but everything downstream that require energy to function. Yes if Europeans has to lose access to Chinese goods for China to import energy, Europeans will lose Chinese goods, because money from export to Europe are worthless without ability to buy real things with that money.

But it's also an entirely moot point because even if you ignore China and central Asian section of the route are double track, rail is hardly the only nor even the main trade route between China and Europe, something I will be generous and assume you simply forgot and not ignorant of, diverting export rail cargo back to ship literally cost China nothing as it will be entirely up to Europe to pay the cost difference.

Having said that you're making good progress in understand why capacity is all that matters, but it's not about the track or gauge or terrain (please review high school physics again), it's limited at loading and unloading, which will require infrastructure investment to expand. But as for who's going to pay for those, it's whoever without that infrastructure, i.e. countries currently starved of fuel, and countries who need to import Chinese goods, which is now everyone when China's the only country who has fuel to power their industry.

Do you get it? In the real world only real things matter, it doesn't matter what that money cost is, if you have access to energy and others don't, you're going to make a profit one way or another, be it through direct resale of oil, or through monopoly of all industrial outputs that require energy.

abenomics12345 said:

Edmonton/Hardisty to Mexico is *checks notes* largely flat plains whereas Iran to China is *checks note* highly mountainous. Let alone different rail width. No difference at all. For all your talk about 'real things' you sure love to ignore the difference in gradient of track and geography.

Meanwhile lets also stop all other traffic/cargo on the China-Europe railway since the capacity will be needed for oil. Exports of cars from Chongqing to Europe? Stop it. Solar panels - nah can't do it since the rail will be tied up with tanker cars.



There is no crude by rail from Iran to China for the same reason there is no 300km/hr HSR from Xining to Lhasa because it makes no sense in the real world.

For someone who claims to think about real things - you sure ignored the fact that 1/6th of oil carried will be consumed by the train itself. This is before we even talk about whether there is sufficient pipeline capacity from Xinjiang to the interior or whether there are sufficient refinery capacity in Western China to process, or if these refineries were tuned to process blends from Iran.

View attachment 173412

Click to expand...

Canadian oil transport by rail basically died ever since TMX came on-line. It was a desperate move when Canada had no choice. China is far from desperate.