Two-and-a-half-week assessment of the Iran War

Today at 10 AM EST top intelligence officials will testify before a Senate Committee.

Welcome to the Vic Eldred Cast.


youtu.be

Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel will surely add humour to the event

let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called 'Straight?

but it had a "laundry room fire" and it has to go to a nearby Mediterranean port for repairs. 

When it returns to it's duty station there might be a new engineering officer on duty.  Lint fires from the laundry are highly dangerous and preventale.

Danger   of   Lint   Fires   from   a   Dryer   Fire   in   the   Navy

Lint   fires   from   a   dryer   in   the   navy   can   be   particularly   dangerous   due   to   the   presence   of   flammable   materials,   high   temperatures,   and   complex   machinery.   The   accumulation   of   lint   inside   a   dryer   can   overheat   and   ignite,   leading   to   significant   fire   hazards.   Proper   maintenance   and   cleaning   of   lint   traps,   as   well   as   the   use   of   lint   removal   systems,   are   essential   to   prevent   lint   fires.   The   use   of   hot   air   during   drying   cycles   results   in   lint   production,   which   can   be   drawn   into   the   ventilation   ductwork,   creating   a   high   probability   for   fire.  

Integrated Publishing +1

You may not hear it from the msm, but thus far the war in Iran has been a smashing success for the US military.

Emphasis on the word "smashing".

Iran's army and navy have been destroyed, and the US has achieved air superiority over all of Iran.

The Army hasn't really been involved yet,  the air force and navy seem to be destroyed, but those missiles keep reaching the Saudi's, UAE and Kuwait...

The President took a big gamble in going in politically. We are about 9 months from the midterm election.

But it did knock Epstein and ICE abuses of the front page entirely...

We had to go it alone and, in the beginning, we were even denied bases that were important logistically.

that was probably a show stopper for anyone with common sense.

Europe has acted like the ungrateful cowards that they are and the American leftist media has been reporting everything in the negative.

And that is your unbiased opinion, right?

As a US Senator recently noted it as if the media during WWII criticized General Eisenhower two weeks into the Normandy invasion for not being in Berlin already.

Yes the media coverage  didn’t just inform the public about the invasion’s progress—it helped keep morale afloat during one of the war’s darkest hours. The methods they used, the dangers they faced, and the impact of their work show how media coverage became an essential part of the government's strict control over the media and propaganda control.

But yay Trump, next Cuba, then Greenland, Epstein, BAD.

ChatGPT fact-check:

Here’s a fact check of the article, based on reporting available as of March 18, 2026 .

Bottom line: the post mixes some real developments with a lot of exaggeration, unsupported claims, and opinion presented as fact. The most defensible overall rating is mostly false / highly misleading . ( reuters.com )

What is true:
The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is real, it began on February 28, 2026 , and U.S. and allied strikes have inflicted major damage on Iranian military assets and leadership. Reuters and AP report that key Iranian leaders, including Ali Larijani , have been killed, that Iran’s naval assets have taken heavy losses, and that the U.S. has struck thousands of targets. ( reuters.com )

The article is also broadly right that Joe Kent resigned from the administration over disagreement with the war. Reuters and AP both report that Kent, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned after arguing Iran did not pose an imminent threat and criticizing the rationale for the war. ( reuters.com )

It is also true that many NATO and European allies have declined to participate militarily , especially regarding a possible mission connected to the Strait of Hormuz. Trump publicly criticized NATO countries for refusing to help. ( reuters.com )

It is also true that the USS Gerald R. Ford suffered a serious laundry-area fire and is going to port temporarily for repairs. Reuters reports that the fire affected about 100 berths and injured roughly 200 sailors from smoke exposure. ( reuters.com )

What is false or overstated:
The claim that “Iran's army and navy have been destroyed” is too strong. There is credible reporting that Iran’s navy has been heavily degraded and that missile and drone capacity has been substantially reduced, but neither Reuters nor AP supports the categorical claim that the entire Iranian army and navy have been “destroyed.” In fact, Iran is still launching missile and drone attacks at Israel and Gulf states, which shows it retains meaningful military capacity. ( reuters.com )

The claim that the U.S. has achieved “air superiority over all of Iran” is also overstated. Reuters reported earlier in the war that the U.S. had established air superiority or localized air superiority , including along Iran’s southern coast, but that is not the same thing as confirmed uncontested dominance over all Iranian airspace. AP also reported that U.S. officials said they still could not stop every Iranian attack. ( reuters.com )

The statement that “only CNN has been allowed in to cover the war on the ground in Iran” is inaccurate as written. The closest supported version is that CNN’s Frederik Pleitgen was described as the only Western television journalist granted access at one point, not the only outlet of any kind, and not proof that “only CNN” was allowed inside Iran in any absolute sense. ( The Guardian )

The quoted sentence saying “Israeli officials said two more top Iranian figures were killed in strikes, including ... Ali Larijani” is only partially verifiable from the sources I found. Reuters and AP confirm Larijani was killed, but I did not find a matching high-quality source confirming that exact paired quote, wording, or the second-named figure as stated in the excerpt you pasted. ( reuters.com )

The claim that “only the ships/tankers that Iran wants to let through are going through” is an overstatement. Reuters reports Iran has effectively blocked almost all traffic through Hormuz, while AP reports that some ships are still getting through and that Iran has selectively allowed certain vessels or flows. So the underlying idea of selective passage has some basis, but the post states it too absolutely. ( reuters.com )

The claim that the U.S. Navy is merely “2–3 more weeks” away from solving the Hormuz problem is speculative. I did not find a reliable source supporting that timeline, and Reuters reporting indicates the administration itself has not provided a clear timetable for ending operations. ( reuters.com )

What is opinion, not fact:
Phrases like “smashing success,” “ungrateful cowards,” “American leftist media,” “democrats ... willing to take the side of anyone opposing Trump,” and “we should all be behind the President” are political opinion, not fact claims. They are not fact-checkable in the normal sense.

What is unsupported in the article:
I did not find reliable sourcing for the claim that the U.S. was denied specific bases that were important logistically , or for the claim that there is “talk of gasoline lines in China.” China and Russia are clearly unhappy about the war, and Reuters notes Russia condemned the killing of Iranian leaders, but that is different from proving gasoline shortages in China. ( reuters.com )

So, line by line, the article contains:

• Real facts: war exists, Iran has taken severe damage, Larijani was killed, Joe Kent resigned, NATO allies have been reluctant, the Ford had a laundry fire. ( reuters.com )

• Misleading exaggerations: “army and navy destroyed,” “air superiority over all of Iran,” “only CNN allowed in,” “only ships Iran wants are going through.” ( reuters.com )

• Unsupported assertions: denied bases, gasoline lines in China, 2–3 week timeline to solve Hormuz. ( reuters.com )

Verdict: the post is not reliable as written . It contains a real-news backbone, but it inflates military claims, states uncertain points as settled fact, and inserts unsupported partisan assertions. A fair summary would be: Iran has suffered major losses, but the war is still active, Iran retains retaliatory capability, the Strait of Hormuz problem is not solved, and several of the post’s strongest claims are not supported by the best available reporting. ( reuters.com )

• reuters.com
• reuters.com
• reuters.com
• reuters.com
• reuters.com
• reuters.com
• AP News
• AP News

Since when is CBS not a high valued news source? What makes Reuters or the AP so much better?

I'm so glad that I don't need "Big Brother" to respond to an article.

I think a lot of leftists use TMZ for their news source

I agree. There is a difference between reporting a story and trying to advance one. TMZ seems more invested in the latter.

President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday that, "I wonder what would happen if we 'finished off' what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called 'Straight?'"

Trump apparently does not care if he looks stupid.   He stupidly calls the incursion (it is now a war) an excursion.   And here he stupidly does not even know (or even bother to look up) what a strait (narrow, connecting waterway) is.

Trump apparently does not care if he looks stupid.

Coming in after Biden, it would take some serious work to look stupid.

But Biden!

Is that really all you've got? I almost feel sad for you.

On a side note, it is really interesting how desperate rightwing conservatives are to gaslight others and try to convince them that life was horrible and America was in crisis under Biden. I was there through all four years, and it was relatively calm waters with no major world upheavals. No threatening to invade and capture a NATO allied country for no reason. No starting multiple unnecessary unprovoked wars. No extra judicial killings of drug suspects without proof of wrongdoing or trial. No insane intentionally disruptive tariffs. Of course, if Biden had used the same exact tariffs Trump is using and how he used them, Republicans would have been screaming at the heavens demanding God strike Biden down every time they pumped gas or bought groceries. Biden managed the financial upheaval of a mostly post-Covid America getting the economy back-up to speed, and whether it was Biden or his handlers, they did a pretty fucking great job for what they were handed.

We did have a lot of very peaceful protests over black Americans being killed in our streets by police, and a very small percentage, less than 6% of those peaceful protests got out of control and became violent. And if you watched any rightwing media, you might have thought America was on fire, but it wasn't. That was all just rightwing conservative partisan theatrics to fool their gullible moron base to keep buying their shit and watching their commercials. All they have to do is play 8 different videos with 8 different angles of a handful of fires from even just one or two protests and you have the entire Republican party (especially the many white supremacists among them who hate black Americans anyway) claiming any and all protests were violent ANTIFA and BLM terrorists, which of course is laughable nonsense easily disproven, but you still have these numbskulls believing it today. So sure, partisans can Monday morning quarterback circle-jerk all day long if they're that involuntarily celibate, but the reality is the America I remember during the Biden years wasn't anywhere near the insanity going on in our government today. Hell, this administration has me looking back at ol' "aint gonna fool me again" GW Bush fondly.

Offer something of value.   Partisan platitudes are worthless.   

Coming in after Biden, it would take some serious work to look stupid.

According to a recent speech Biden doesn't know what country he lives in.

According to a recent speech Biden doesn't know what country he lives in.

A perfect example of pure partisan crap.   You intentionally pretend a slur by Biden means he does not even know his country while making endless excuses for Trump.

Slurring of words, gaffes, etc. should be recognized as such by rational minds.  People make mistakes, especially as we age.  But Trump clearly is showing that he does not know the difference between an incursion and an excursion and does not even know what a strait is.   That is not human error, it is an unacceptable level of ignorance by someone who holds the power and responsibility of the USA presidency.

A perfect example of pure partisan crap. 

Perfect example of hate for a person taking over.  When Biden misspeaks it is a gaffe, when Trump does it " it is an unacceptable level of ignorance".

Learn the difference between ignorance and a mistake.

Great idea.  It is always a good if one tries to ignore who did it so bias against someone doesn't dictate which it is.

I have total confidence that Trump has misspelled more words in public than all the other presidents combined. 

I have total confidence that Trump has misspelled more words in public than all the other presidents combined.[✘]

It is always a good if one tries to ignore who did it so bias against someone doesn't dictate which it is.

And of course you invent more bullshit.

You do not see me criticizing Trump for faux pas.   I do not criticize for obvious mistakes but rather for obvious ignorance and stupidity.   Get your facts straight.

[deleted][✘]

Any data to support that opinion?

But Biden! Is that really all you've got?

You don't like when your games are played against you?  

doesn't know what country he lives in.

There was evidence of that when he was a senator.

Partisan platitudes are worthless.[✘]

You intentionally pretend a slur by Biden means he does not even know his country

Facts aren't "slurs".

[✘] while making endless excuses for Trump.

where did he do that? Oh, that's right. He's not agreeing with your partisan bullshit so he's making excuses. Gotcha.

There was evidence of that when he was a senator.

Yet some on the left still deny the fact of just how far his mental decline went. 

The rest of this thread was deleted for meta and additional taunting about meta. It is locked, and it better not come up in other threads, or big points will be handed out. Get back to the actual topic. 

You don't like when your games are played against you?  

Complaining about the existing President doing crazy shit does not equate to playing the "But Biden!" "But Obama!" "But Clinton!" bullshit game some conservatives play. Try again.

Donald Trump, the so called president of the United States, is quoted as having misspelled the word "strait"  , which happens to describe the location where the war is most in question. 

President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday that, "I wonder what would happen if we 'finished off' what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called 'Straight?'"

Are you happy to have a president who is either careless or stupid, or both ? 

He is both careless and stupid.   He has a history of inventing his own facts.   That is so much easier than spending the mental effort to learn real facts.

What kills me is that he does not even care (or does not recognize) how stupid he looks to the world when he shows that he does not even know what a strait is — yet he authorized military operations in a strait and is asking allies to help defend the Strait of Hormuz.    

And he does not understand the difference between an incursion and an excursion yet he has authorized the military operation.

Incredible that this nation has elected and defends someone this incompetent and stupid as PotUS.   This is like a bad movie.

careless or stupid, or both ? 

Oh it's both...

All of the above adds up to another crucial decision for President Trump. He can seek some kind of a deal with whoever now controls Iran which would allow the US to declare objectives achieved and leave or Trump can leave the strait of Hormuz problem to the US Navy, which may take 2-3 more weeks. 

IMO the decision of what to do at this point should have already been expected and a decision should have already been made  before the first bombs were ever dropped.

No shit.   Trump is incompetent.

Trump is incompetent.

Yea, yea yea.

[✘]

[deleted][✘]

[deleted][✘]

There hasn't been anything close to the equivalent of a Normandy Invasion.  That's more Trump-style exagger-lying.  

Trump doesn't know why we went, what we are doing there, or how to get out.  There have been some passive-aggressive armchair strategizing that Trump has been strangling China's oil supply.  That's swell fiction since the only oil getting thought the Strait of Hormuz is headed for China.  And payments must be made in Yuan.  As Iran says, so it must be.  

This war is progressing like any other the US has started in the Middle East.  The US can smash countries back to the stone age but cannot get a win.  The US spends 15 to 20 times more on defense than Iran so the US damn well better be capable of destroying things and killing people.  

Before the war about $1.8 billion worth of oil transited the Strait of Hormuz each day.  Now Trump is spending about $1.8 billion a day on a war that provides no benefit to the US.  Trump turned a profitable trade into a $3.6 billion a day loss.  The inflationary impact across global markets brings the loss closer to $5 billion per day.  Restocking the stockpiles of munitions could add another $1 billion per day to the cost.

Trump's ego rush has been exorbitantly expensive.  In Trump's inimical, trademarked style he has turned the war into a gold-plated FUBAR circus.  And we still don't know why the war started, what we are doing there, how the US gains anything, or when we'll get out.

Trump-style exagger-lying.  

Can we just call it lying? It's exhausting trying to call what we all know is a 'war' something else just so the government can play some game of semantics or Trumps lies something other than what they are, lies.

[✘]

What is the objective?   What is the plan to achieve the objective?   What is the plan after achieving the objective?

Normally, those questions are already answered, at least in the abstract, before the USA goes to war.   And at this point, Trump has ipso facto taken the USA into war (illegally, of course).

I am all in favor of taking action against Iran, but the action needs to be commensurate with the threat and needs to be well-conceived.   I see no evidence of that.

But Trump supporters just rubber-stamp anything this buffoon does.   (A buffoon who authorized military operations yet does not know the difference between an incursion and an excursion and who thinks the Strait of Hormuz is a "so-called Straight".)

I am all in favor of taking action against Iran, but the action needs to be commensurate with the threat and needs to be well-conceived.   I see no evidence of that.

You're all in favor of action but can't define what the threat is?  That's a pretty flawed mindset. 

How is it that you so totally misunderstand what I wrote?   (It is not plausible; you are trolling.) 

I stated that the action needs to be commensurate with the threat.   I am talking about the justification for the action; not that there is no threat.

However, none of us can define the threat except in abstract terms.   We know that Iran is A if not THE major backer of terrorism and remains an ugly threat to the planet.   But neither you or anyone else who lacks access to Intelligence briefings can determine the specific nature of the threat in terms of plausible terrorist weapons, personnel, acts, relationships, and —importantly— timing.   Without that information, none of us can determine if the actions taken by Trump were/are commensurate with the threat.

I was willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when targeting nuclear facilities.   This war (which it ipso facto is now), however, seems to be ill-conceived and overkill.  Further, it is illegal since Congress must declare war.

That said, there might be some Intelligence that might justify Trump's actions but I seriously doubt that such Intelligence exists.   The most likely scenario is that Trump 'got a notion' and impulsively acted on it with little forethought.   And I would not be surprised if the asshole did this largely to detract from the Epstein files.

$6.00 a gallon....Who benefits from that?

Government (taxes and royalties), oil producers and savvy investors.

All at the expense of the consumer both at the pump and in inflated prices due to increased transportation costs.

Trump is an asshole.

The Iran war is as unnecessary as GW Bush's Iraq war. Now oil/fuel costs will go up. Products either will or already is becoming more expensive. Trump has managed to alienate other countries,  including our allies. China & Russia will benefit more. And for what? So Trump can play pretend general. 🙄 

What an abysmal embarrassment and failure as President. 

If Obama or Clinton had done this, the right wing radicalized rightists would be up in arms..

Probably. But I also doubt Clinton or Obama would have screwed up as much as Trump.

Obama is the reason that this had to be done.

It is not clear what 'this' is or when 'this' will be done and what 'this' specifically sought to accomplish and why 'this' had to be done as it was done at this time.

At this point I do not believe Trump has given 'this' more than superficial thought.   His exit plan and timing is a function of him 'feeling it in his bones'.

This guy is a disaster.

I'm surprised you're not blaming Biden, Clinton, and even Carter while you're at it.