Iran

[Tim Steelersfan]

Thank God for that. Most sane Americans understand that NATO is a defensive alliance amongst allied nations

An alliance we predominantly fund that does NOT live up to its charter.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Gonna cue this up again, to highlight what the (as of now) unarmed citizens of Iran are up against.

Together, the regular armed forces, the Artesh, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, are made up of 610,000 active-duty personnel plus 350,000 reserve and trained personnel. In addition, there is a 260,000+ strong police force, including border guards, under the direct control of the supreme leader. These forces are well-armed with plenty of Russian equipment, and have shown no hesitancy to slaughter masses of their own people.

You forgot that he was blown to a thousand tiny bits and the new named supreme terrorist is likely still comatose missing limbs.

They are up against a lot, however. Now is the time to assist them. If their citizens want to rise up, now is likely the only chance they will ever have. And I highly suspect if they do, the USA and Israel will support said uprising.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The current rudderless and seemingly perplexed leadership in the White House, and at the head of the Pentagon, give me plenty of pause if we're on the right path on getting there. But I most certainly hope we get there.

I heard a powerful interview today with General Jack Keene. I'll have to paraphrase as I listened to it while driving. He summarized that the President is fighting two wars. One in Iran, and the never ending war against the corrupt media in the USA, which he said is continually trying to sow seeds of doubt about this effort being without objectives and "rudderless" (he too used that word. He said that nothing could be further from the truth and suggested you could speak to any general, commander, or leader involved in this effort from the Pentagon to the battlefield if they have clear objectives under which they are operating and he said everyone of them, to a man, would say their objectives are crystal clear. And that he hadn't seen more clearly outlined objectives for a military engagement in his lifetime.

Mind you, this is a man who steers clear of politics. I saw him interviewed about foreign policy around the time of the last election, and the interviewer pressed him on partisan issues regarding Democrats and Republicans, and he forcefully said that he refuses to get into politics, doesn't make his observations based on politics, and asked the interviewer to kindly change the topic. He was so forceful about it, it was awkward to watch.

I take his commentary as being wholly objective.

You're listening to Harvard professors and HuffPo who want you and the Liberal populace to oppose this effort at all costs.

 

[Tibs]

An alliance we predominantly fund that does NOT live up to its charter.

I agree, the US takes on too large of a financial burden. I also (shockingly) agree with Trump's push to bring members in line with agreed-upon commitments, which has risen from 2% to 5% of GDP last year.

To put it in context:

NATO Key Funding Trends (2025–2026)

The 2% Milestone: As of late 2025, every NATO member has achieved the long-standing target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

New 5% Commitment: At the 2025 Hague Summit, allies committed to a new target of investing 5% of GDP annually by 2035. This includes 3.5% for core defense and 1.5% for security-related infrastructure and resilience.

Burden Sharing: Total defense expenditure for all allies in 2025 is estimated at over $1.4 trillion. While the U.S. share of total spending remains dominant, it decreased from 64% to 59% in 2025 as European allies and Canada increased their investments by roughly 20%.

Frontline Increases: Countries like Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia lead the alliance in spending as a percentage of GDP, with Poland reaching 4.48% ($948 per capita) in 2025.

Also worth looking at from a per capita perspective:

Top NATO Defense Spenders per Capita (2025 Estimates)

1 Norway $3,191
2 United States $2,469
3 Denmark $2,400
4 Luxembourg $1,780
5 Sweden $1,553
6 Finland $1,478
7 Netherlands $1,105
8 United Kingdom $1,164

It's also not clear what the US defense budget would look like without NATO commitments. I think there's some confusion about this stateside, as it's become a political talking point.

The U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2026 is projected to exceed $1 trillion.

While NATO membership is a major pillar of U.S. security, its direct cost is a small fraction of the total budget. Experts suggest that a withdrawal would not automatically lead to significant savings, as the U.S. would likely face new costs to replace shared capabilities or maintain its global posture unilaterally.

 

[Tibs]

You forgot that he was blown to a thousand tiny bits and the new named supreme terrorist is likely still comatose missing limbs.

They are up against a lot, however. Now is the time to assist them. If their citizens want to rise up, now is likely the only chance they will ever have. And I highly suspect if they do, the USA and Israel will support said uprising.

Agreed, Tim. The question is how, at what cost, and in what timeline can you arm & prepare Iranians to take on their own government, police, and military forces? I don't know.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Agreed, Tim. The question is how, at what cost, and in what timeline can you arm & prepare Iranians to take on their own government, police, and military forces? I don't know.

The long-term dividends of freeing Iranians and the middle east from the grip of the Iranian terrorist state could be worth far more than it costs. the west should be lining up to help.

 

[Tibs]

The long-term dividends of freeing Iranians and the middle east form the grip of the Iranian terrorist state could be worth far more than it costs. the west should be lining up to help.

That could be arranged, with a little more cooperation, communication, diplomacy, shared planning and strategy with allies, as opposed to a frantic, belligerent, do-it-alone approach, then whine and pout, and expect everyone to join in when you've made a mess of the situation.

That's my primary critique here, it has nothing to do with the basic concept of taking out the Islamic Republic, or triggering regime change in Iran, dismantling their nukes and terrorist apparatus. It just blows my mind how reckless this administration is, if you think back to how brilliant American leadership, diplomacy and military strategy has been over the past century, including both world wars, or more recently, the way America spearheaded the end of the Balkan wars in the 90s with full NATO cooperation. Something is missing here, whether you guys see it, or admit it, or not.

 

[Steelr4evr]

As I have said from the very start of this when Iran was raping,torturing and murdering tens of thousands of its own citizens.

Arm the citizens. Rifles and ammo are dirt cheap. A well armed population can finish the job.

They'll need to be quick, ruthless and very heavy handed.

 

[BLITZ]

I don't want to exit NATO, I want Europe to shoulder a much larger financial burden for it's own defense and stop living off of us. We already subsidize a huge percentage of the drug industry for them through our outrageous drug prices on top of defending them militarily. We may be better off doing what Trump is wrongly accused of and cozying up to Russia. It would be a lot cheaper being their ally than their enemy. Particularly with the China issues.

NATO for is never made sense.
Think about where we are in the world. 2 giant oceans separate us. Canada on one side mexico/southamerica on the other. We will not be invaded. We have extreme natural boarders.

Nato for the rest of the members is a dream come true for them.

 

[Tibs]

NATO for is never made sense.

Some food for thought, worthy of consideration.

NATO membership provides the United States with several strategic advantages that extend beyond immediate military defense:

Global Military Presence and Logistics: NATO allows the U.S. to maintain a massive network of military bases and installations throughout Europe, such as the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and major hubs in Germany. These locations are critical for refueling, intelligence gathering, and responding to crises in the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.

Strengthened Deterrence: By extending a "nuclear umbrella" and defense guarantees, the U.S. deters attacks on allies, which prevents regional conflicts from escalating into larger wars that could disrupt global stability.

Prevention of Nuclear Proliferation: U.S. defense guarantees reduce the incentive for European allies to develop their own independent nuclear arsenals, which helps prevent a dangerous global arms race.

Intelligence and Resource Sharing: The alliance facilitates deep intelligence sharing and interoperability between militaries, ensuring that the U.S. does not have to act alone in international security operations.

Political and Economic Stability: NATO contributes to the overall security, prosperity, and liberty of the American people by maintaining a stable environment for trade and democratic governance in Europe.

 

[BLITZ]

Some food for thought, worthy of consideration.

I read that also. But again NATO makes little sense for the USA.

For every else? He'll yes

 

[IndySteel]

I read that also. But again NATO makes little sense for the USA.

For every else? He'll yes

NATO is America protecting and funding the pusssy countries and the pusssy countries saying F you when America asks for something. Screw them. We don’t need them. They provide zero benefit.

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

Frontline Increases: Countries like Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia lead the alliance in spending as a percentage of GDP, with Poland reaching 4.48% ($948 per capita) in 2025.

Poland is investing heavily in defence because they are concerned they may be next on Russia's invasion list.

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

NATO for is never made sense.
Think about where we are in the world. 2 giant oceans separate us. Canada on one side mexico/southamerica on the other. We will not be invaded. We have extreme natural boarders.

Nato for the rest of the members is a dream come true for them.

Might not be invaded, but can still be attacked. How would Afghanistan have gone after 9/11 without access to bases in Europe?

 

[Aussie_Steeler]

NATO is America protecting and funding the pusssy countries and the pusssy countries saying F you when America asks for something. Screw them. We don’t need them. They provide zero benefit.

Maybe if Trump consulted with the NATO allies prior to launching an attack, rather than going it alone with only Israel and then demanding the rest of NATO become involved he may have received more co-operation.

 

[IndySteel]

Maybe if Trump consulted with the NATO allies prior to launching an attack, rather than going it alone with only Israel and then demanding the rest of NATO become involved he may have received more co-operation.

He had to keep it secret. NATO would’ve leaked the plan, just like the commie democrats.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Maybe if Trump consulted with the NATO allies prior to launching an attack, rather than going it alone with only Israel and then demanding the rest of NATO become involved he may have received more co-operation.

Loose lips n'at

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

That could be arranged, with a little more cooperation, communication, diplomacy, shared planning and strategy with allies, as opposed to a frantic, belligerent, do-it-alone approach, then whine and pout, and expect everyone to join in when you've made a mess of the situation.

That's my primary critique here, it has nothing to do with the basic concept of taking out the Islamic Republic, or triggering regime change in Iran, dismantling their nukes and terrorist apparatus. It just blows my mind how reckless this administration is, if you think back to how brilliant American leadership, diplomacy and military strategy has been over the past century, including both world wars, or more recently, the way America spearheaded the end of the Balkan wars in the 90s with full NATO cooperation. Something is missing here, whether you guys see it, or admit it, or not.

The issue is intelligence. You have to act on it immediately. If they had waited for consensus building and approvals they would have never been able to hit the leadership they way they did. Hell they couldn’t even trust Congress to not spill the beans.

 

[BLITZ]

Might not be invaded, but can still be attacked. How would Afghanistan have gone after 9/11 without access to bases in Europe?

To deep for me. But would 911 have happened if we were not in the middle east?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Understood, but US military spending and the cost of US global reach in the Pacific and ME far surpasses the relative cost of NATO obligations. Much of that is also tied into NATO members buying our hardware. Not sure it’s an open-and-shut case that we’d be better off without it.

For instance, we’re currently blowing through $1 billion per day on the ongoing war with Iran, some $35 billion total, as of April 1.

But the Senate could vote for a US-NATO exit, and that would be that. Close up all the military bases in Germany, Spain, UK, and Italy, bring our 85,000 service members back home, and be done with it.

And use them to seal the northern and southern borders.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

To deep for me. But would 911 have happened if we were not in the middle east?

Probably.

 

[Djfan]

Maybe if Trump consulted with the NATO allies prior to launching an attack, rather than going it alone with only Israel and then demanding the rest of NATO become involved he may have received more co-operation.

So that they can go warn Iran? No thanks.