Post New

The President had some additional statements on the Iran war yesterday, and I thought they offered a very good crystallization of why some folks think the war is yielding worthwhile outcomes and others think it's been a terrible decision:

“We are totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran, militarily, economically, and otherwise, yet, if you read the Failing New York Times, you would incorrectly think that we are not winning,” the president said.

“Iran’s Navy is gone, their Air Force is no longer, missiles, drones and everything else are being decimated, and their leaders have been wiped from the face of the earth,” he added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/578252...

The reason there's a difference of opinion on the war is that the first sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second sentence. We absolutely have accomplished all the things that Trump lays out in the second sentence. Operationally, the military has achieved all of the specific tasks set out for it.

However, that does not mean we are "totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran," as Trump claims in the first sentence. That strategic goal has not been accomplished. The regime very much still exists, still controls the country, and has complete continuity with the regime that existed prior to the war. The individuals have changed (we killed nearly all the old leadership), but the regime has not. Which is why critics of the war point out that we're not winning. We weren't able to effectuate any material change to the terrorist regime (not the individuals but the actual government), and we're moving into the phase where we've already bombed most everything worth bombing.

And that's the main issue. We haven't destroyed the regime. We've destroyed most (nearly all?) of their then-existing facilities and larger weapons, but the regime is in place. Since that regime is still in charge of one of the world's larger countries and larger economies, and will still be closely allied with China and Russia and other "bad actors," there's no reason to think they won't be in a position to rebuild all the stuff we've blown up within a few years. Or perhaps even sooner. After all, in the 12 Day War less than a year ago we obliterated their nuclear program and blew up all their ballistic missile facilities (well, Israel went after the missile sites) - and yet it wasn't even a year later that the Iranian regime had pushed those programs back to the point where they were an intolerable threat.

The President had some additional statements on the Iran war yesterday, and I thought they offered a very good crystallization of why some folks think the war is yielding worthwhile outcomes and others think it's been a terrible decision:

It comes down to whether you believe the administrations endless fount of lies or you believe in facts.

Like almost everything Trump does, it destroys America’s standing in the world and weakens our nation and, as a consequence, strengthens the position of our enemies, Russia and China.

This is what happens when you when you believe, and continue to support Trump, an ignorant pathological liar who is clearly showing a loss of cognitive functions through his actions and words.

And Republicans obsequiously twiddle their thumbs while Rome burns.

But it's alright, it's alright
For we lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the
Road we're traveling on
I wonder what's gone wrong
I can't help it, I wonder what has gone wrong

“We are totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran, militarily"
"“Iran’s Navy is gone, their Air Force is no longer, missiles, drones and everything else are being decimated, and their leaders have been wiped from the face of the earth,”
---------------------------------------------

I appreciate your level-headedness at being able to try to see both sides of the division.

The 2 Trump statements I copied are total bullshit. If we have totally destroyed Iran militarily, why is the Strait still shut down?
It's that simple to determine that Trump is feeding lines of BS to the American public.

I can't tolerate Trump making absolute BS statements, and don't have any respect for people that cannot question whether the story they are being fed is made up BS.

Trump in reality cannot TACO out of this. Sure, he can declare victory and leave the region in rubble. But I seriously,seriously doubt that Iran is going to be cowed by Trump's bluster. I expect terrorist attacks on US soil. Trump has opened Pandora's Box, and he can try to "weave" his ass out of it all he wants, but America is gonna be feeling the effect of his idiocy for the long term.

It comes down to whether you believe the administrations endless fount of lies or you believe in facts.

It also matters what you think those facts mean.

There's no reason to doubt that the U.S. has all-but-destroyed Iran's ability to exercise "conventional" military power. We had overwhelming conventional military superiority over them. Going into the war, there was little chance they could avoid having their air force, navy, and fixed missile installations and other military bases utterly destroyed by our air power. Those things are also relatively simple for militaries and intelligence services from other countries to monitor and assess. The Administration is almost certainly telling the truth about the amount of damage we've done to Iran's conventional military capabilities.

The issue is what that means. Iran is able to keep the Strait shut down because they also have the ability to wage asymmetric war. Overwhelming conventional military superiority doesn't mean that you eliminate the ability of your opponent to fight back - it just means they can't fight you on the conventional battlefield. As we learned to our dismay in Iraq. So even though Iran's conventional military has been all-but-eliminated, they can still use small-bore tactics (drones, mines, small portable non-ballistic missiles, etc.) to inflict damage. Because the Strait of Hormuz is so narrow, those tactics are effective in inflicting massive global economic problems. You can't bomb your way out of that problem.

So as long as the regime exists and has internal control over the country, they'll have the ability to keep their hands around the neck of the global economy. As long as the regime exists and has internal control over the country, they'll be well positioned to resume to their prior threat level a relatively short time after the conflict ends. Again, it took them barely eight months to go from their nuclear program having been "obliterated" to again posing an unfathomable threat to the world - the damage is much more widespread this time around, but with $2 trillion GDP (PPP), they'll have plenty of resources to rebuild over time.

. I expect terrorist attacks on US soil

We apparently had two of them yesterday, but they are stupid, even from Iran’s point of view. They only encourage people to “rally round the flag”, whereas “high prices at the gas pumps” does the opposite.

I’m sure the two individuals yesterday weren’t under Iran’s control, but if they could they’d be smart to stop these lone wolf morons and let gas prices do the heavy lifting for them.

“We are totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran, militarily, economically, and otherwise, yet, if you read the Failing New York Times, you would incorrectly think that we are not winning,” the president said.

“Iran’s Navy is gone, their Air Force is no longer, missiles, drones and everything else are being decimated, and their leaders have been wiped from the face of the earth,” he added.

As noted before, I can't tell who is "Baghdad Bob" on this go around.

Steve

It also matters what you think those facts mean.

We are in agreement.

"We apparently had two of them yesterday, but they are stupid, even from Iran’s point of view."

yeah,I heard about them, but haven't read any details.
Seems like the bombers would cause more problems if they did some attacks at Maralago.

Iran is in the state it is, because of inept US interventions, starting with installing the Shah in order to prop up the continued theft of Iranian oil by western oil companies. So, this is the latest installment of ineptitude by the US state department, not substantively different than Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Even were we to "win" this war by dismantling every semblance of a governing body, Iran would become a balkanized failed state with a plethora of radical jihadist groups further destabilizing neighboring states from Pakistan to Turkey.

US interventions on behalf of US corporate interests abroad have not usually, possibly never, turned out well. Witness El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina. Having been of draft age during the Viet Nam War/Police Action, I thought the stupidity of that involvement would be forever self-evident. That "falling domino" of communism, is now home to manufacturing plants for US products and a vacation hot spot for Americans. How they have forgiven us for dropping more ordinance on them than was used in all of WWII I can't understand.

And yet, here we go again.

Iran is in the state it is, because of inept US interventions, starting with installing the Shah

A viewer commented on TYT yesterday, suggesting the commentators remind viewers about SAVAK. There were a lot of Iranian students at Whatsa Matta U, in the 70s, I saw them, several times, demonstrating against the Shah's regime. They were wearing masks against being observed by SAVAK agents, here in Michigan. When the roof of the passenger terminal in Tehran collapsed (Dec 5, 1974), the official explanation was snow load. An Iranian classmate of mine told me "Don't believe the reports. It was a bomb. There is a revolution coming".

Steve

The reason there's a difference of opinion on the war is that the first sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second sentence. We absolutely have accomplished all the things that Trump lays out in the second sentence. Operationally, the military has achieved all of the specific tasks set out for it.

However, that does not mean we are "totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran," as Trump claims in the first sentence. That strategic goal has not been accomplished. The regime very much still exists, still controls the country, and has complete continuity with the regime that existed prior to the war.

It of course comes down to how one wants to parse Trump's statements. This board is in the mode of assuming Trump is lying and/or 100% wrong on everything he says, so in that vein, sure! No change at all on the ground, not at all!

But that's not a correct lens. The regime has been decapitated. The mullah council is gone, the top generals are gone and the new "Supreme Leader" is at best in a coma missing major body parts. You're going to immediately push back here and tell me "but the regime is still in charge!" But one needs to add additional context:

-It took 7 months of bombing to get rid of Libya
-it's only been 12 days here
-Not every move has played out yet

in Iran's case, the Basiji thugs running around on their motorcycles are keeping the citizens in line while what's left of the IRGC tries to maintain some semblance of control. The IDF is on it:

*They're bombing Iran's banking data centers, so the local gangsters aren't getting paid
*They have drones hovering over Tehran and every time they see 3 guys and a motorcycle, they get a hand grenade dropped on their heads

Now there's a Marine Expeditionary force headed to the Gulf likely with a very specific island destination in mind.

The point about Iran's nukes is also missing key context and information.

Iran's centrifuges and equipment needed for further enrichment of uranium are buried under tons of rock and aren't usable. When Trump says "Iran's nuclear program is destroyed" that's what he means.

But what is also true is that the Iranians spirited away what fissile material they had before Isfahan and the other sites were bombed. It had been assumed by head in sand democrats that the Iranians weren't capable of building a nuclear weapon, but they admitted something important to Steve Witkoff:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-steve-witkoff-i...

"Both the Iranian negotiators said to us, directly, with, you know, no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%, and they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance," Witkoff told Fox News.
...
"That's how they opened up," Witkoff said. "We, of course, responded that the president feels we have the inalienable right to stop you, dead in your tracks."

Witkoff said one of the proposals discussed at the negotiations included Iran not enriching any uranium for a decade in exchange for the U.S. paying for its nuclear fuel.

"They rejected that, which told us at that very moment that they had no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing," Witkoff said.

You can build a civilian reactor for energy purposes at 5-10% enrichment. Higher than that and you're going for a bomb.

The Iranians already had material they could have mounted on a ballistic missile and weaponized it. The bolded statement is why Trump ordered the action on Iran.

in Iran's case, the Basiji thugs running around on their motorcycles are keeping the citizens in line while what's left of the IRGC tries to maintain some semblance of control. The IDF is on it:

And to further nail this point:

https://x.com/Saul_Sadka/status/203224809387424980...

WILD: The predicted “future” came within 24 hours. This is Israeli Air Force footage of drones and jets blowing up Basij checkpoints all around Tehran today, based on tips called in by Iranian citizens. A revolution with air support against a regime with no air defence.

Maybe Trump should not have canceled the nuclear treaty we had with Iran?

"Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." ~George Orwell

"I used to play Risk a lot in high school. So trust me when I say going to war with Iran is pure genius!
The key to victory is simple: ignore history, geography, and basic math, then charge full speed into a nation that’s the size of Western Europe.
It worked for me once in a board game that ended when my mom called us for dinner." ~Dopel, Covfefe Crusader

But that's not a correct lens. The regime has been decapitated. The mullah council is gone, the top generals are gone and the new "Supreme Leader" is at best in a coma missing major body parts. You're going to immediately push back here and tell me "but the regime is still in charge!" But one needs to add additional context:

-It took 7 months of bombing to get rid of Libya
-it's only been 12 days here
-Not every move has played out yet

in Iran's case, the Basiji thugs running around on their motorcycles are keeping the citizens in line while what's left of the IRGC tries to maintain some semblance of control.

It's still early....but we've already fired our main shot. The Iranian regime's plans for continuity and maintaining control were severely tested, as we eliminated a lot of their leadership in the first few days. And they passed that test.

It didn't take 7 months of bombing to "get rid of Libya." It took seven months of bombing before Gaddafi was finally killed. And once he was killed, the regime fell literally immediately, because there wasn't any regime in Libya other than Gaddafi. There was no institutional regime, just his personal power. We now know that isn't happening in Iran the same way as it happened in Libya, because unlike Libya there is actually a structure to the Iranian government that's capable of transitioning beyond the death of any individual leaders.

This is not a case where "what's left of the IRGC tries to maintain some semblance of control." There's no indication that the IRGC has lost any of its institutional capabilities - they are still very firmly in charge of the country, and the loss of their leadership does not appear to have affected their control at all. All of the publicly discussed intelligence reports find that they have full control of the Iranian populace, not a "semblance" of control. Similarly, I'm not sure where you're getting "coma" notion from - the Administration has said that the younger Khameini was wounded, but not that he was put into a coma.

Now there's a Marine Expeditionary force headed to the Gulf likely with a very specific island destination in mind.

And what does that do? We could bomb Kharg Island. Or seize it, though the combination of "boots on the ground" and putting an additional spike into oil prices are going to be quite unpleasant for Trump politically, so who knows if he actually gives the go ahead for either. Neither diminishes Iran's capacity for asymmetric warfare. Trump might be 100% correct when he notes that we have "unparalleled firepower, unlimited ammunition and plenty of time" - but that's been true in other conflicts, like when we were in Iraq or Afghanistan. "Unparalleled firepower" doesn't mean "you win" - it just means that you have an insurmountable edge in conventional battles, so your opponent is forced to engage in asymmetric warfare. That puts them at a disadvantage, but (again) as we've seen in other conflicts, you can win with asymmetric warfare. And that's going to be especially the case here, because Iran is completely capable of keeping the Straits mostly shut down even with their conventional military destroyed.

It's still early days, yes. We might at some point in the future "totally destroy the terrorist regime of Iran." But these early indications aren't great, right? The most plausible timelines for destroying the regime didn't happen, and they've already passed. The regime didn't collapse when their leadership was decapitated. The regime didn't get taken over by a more pragmatic successor. The decapitation strike didn't engender a civil war, which also differentiates this situation from Libya (where the civil war had actually already started a month or so before the bombing campaign). Having survived all that, there are far fewer plausible scenarios for the regime to be destroyed going forward....

....with the tactics we're taking now. Obviously, if we did a full on ground invasion like Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, we could absolutely destroy the regime. But that doesn't seem to be on offer. We could put in a smaller, but still sizable, ground force invasion and perhaps accomplish the goal of destroying the government and clear the path for another conquering force (say, the Kurds) - but I don't think that's on offer, either.

What does seem to be on offer appears to be at most: i) more aerial power; ii) limited and discrete "expeditionary force" boots on the ground; and iii) perhaps supporting other people's boots on the ground (like the Kurds). It's not literally impossible for those things to work, but they're pretty unlikely. We're not going to be able to bomb our way out of this situation.

It's still early....but we've already fired our main shot. The Iranian regime's plans for continuity and maintaining control were severely tested, as we eliminated a lot of their leadership in the first few days. And they passed that test.

It took 7 months and "main shot" implies only doing 1 thing, which isn't accurate. There are several "shots" being taken.

What does seem to be on offer appears to be at most: i) more aerial power; ii) limited and discrete "expeditionary force" boots on the ground; and iii) perhaps supporting other people's boots on the ground (like the Kurds). It's not literally impossible for those things to work, but they're pretty unlikely. We're not going to be able to bomb our way out of this situation.

That's certainly one take.

The Iranians already had material they could have mounted on a ballistic missile and weaponized it. The bolded statement is why Trump ordered the action on Iran.

But if that's the case...they still do. The material doesn't disappear because we bomb it - if even we've bombed it this time, because it was "spirited away" before we could bomb it last time. That's why bombing them seven months ago didn't work to eliminate the nuclear threat. And why therefore this bombing campaign won't eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, either.

But if that's the case...they still do.

That's right. They do.

Notice what wasn't said. *When* they got this done and for *how long* they've had this stockpile. It's beyond clear that Obama was played (or just didn't understand what he was doing) when he signed the JCPOA agreement because obviously Iran took the money while continuing on their merry way towards making nukes.

The material doesn't disappear because we bomb it - if even we've bombed it this time, because it was "spirited away" before we could bomb it last time. That's why bombing them seven months ago didn't work to eliminate the nuclear threat. And why therefore this bombing campaign won't eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, either.

We have to hunt down the stockpile and/or kill anyone with knowledge of making nuclear weapons. There are 460-odd kg of 60% enriched uranium hidden in some storage locker someplace. You think Mossad is interested in finding it?

This war comes down to one thing, and you're going to push back megahard on it: Clearing the board. Venezuela was a board-clearing exercise. Iran was. Cuba is next (and they're talking to us right now).

It should be beyond obvious to anyone not on Barack Obama's or Joe Biden's foreign policy team that a nuclear-armed Iran that had ballistic missile capabilities was a dire threat to the region and US National Security across the board. The Iranians for the first time admitted they had that stuff and as such...the regime needed to die, pronto. They forgot the first lesson of strategic ambiguity: don't show your cards.

The key to victory is simple: ignore morons.

And that's exactly what I'm doing.

It of course comes down to how one wants to parse Trump's statements.

No one but an utter fool would bother spending a single second parsing anything Trump says.

This board is in the mode of assuming Trump is lying and/or 100% wrong on everything he says, so in that vein, sure!

The entire world is in the mode of assuming Trump is lying and/or 100% wrong on everything he says. Are you really still excited to be one of the dwindling few nitwits still gobbling his twaddle-turds like Pez? A leader so corrupt and craven that there is no cognate in all of American history? Pedophile, predator, war criminal, fraud, fool.
Buy a vowel, dude.

But that's not a correct lens.

Thank you for straightening us out on how to view world affairs. Big BOOM BOOM BOOM so exciting! Is that how 4D chess works?

I have a question for your ilk, Stepford Scooter: do low-(as in no-)information voters not fill your gas tanks anymore? Sworn off of drinking coffee? Buying food? Perhaps you fancy yourself a budding Zuckerberg or Bezos, the petty concerns of the huddles masses beneath your notice these days? I just paid $5.14 a gallon for gas in Palm Desert, and $25 for two pounds of coffee from Costco.com.

But big prices are a small price to pay, am I right! I'm thinking that Golden Age is primed to start in three...two...one...

I love that you're still happy, or pretending to be happy, about living in the New American Shitstorm. Maybe watch a few more bombing-porn video game ads from the official White House account and see if you still get a chubby.

Oh my word, I just realized that pointing out reality to you is a complete waste of time. It's not because we disagree on what we're seeing. It's because you are never going to convince the rest of us to be stupid.

And I see another board ret@rd has joined the chat.

The key to victory is simple: ignore morons.

Yes. This is the way.

And I see another board ret@rd has joined the chat.

I will say, you're definitely holding your own. And you can quote me on that!

It took 7 months and "main shot" implies only doing 1 thing, which isn't accurate. There are several "shots" being taken.

"Main shot" does not imply only doing one thing. Quite the opposite - it implies doing more than one thing, of which one is the most significant. And that's absolutely what happened. It's hard to imagine what 'shot' would be more significant than the decapitating attack that took out nearly all of the country's then-leadership all at once. That was the moment when the regime's stability and continuity plans would have undergone their biggest stress: most of the decision-makers killed at once, the successors having whatever internal jockeying for power all happening at the same time and under extreme duress, all during the fog of ongoing attacks by the U.S.

And the regime held.

That's why the Libya comparison is inapt. Here, we did in Week 1 what didn't happen in Libya until Month 7. But unlike Libya, where the old regime immediately collapsed upon Gaddafi's death, the Iranian regime successfully implemented their contingency planning and maintained control of the country. There's been no sign of any civil war starting, intelligence consistently reports that the IRGC maintains firm control over the country and the Iranian populace, and there's no public sign of any weakening of the political or military command structures.

That's certainly one take.

What's the contrary take? If the regime didn't collapse after the decapitating strike, what's the "shot" we take that causes them to collapse? Seizing Kharg Island would be a significant event - but is it plausible that it would bring down the regime? Why would the U.S. seizing a single island literally on the other side of the country from Tehran - even a critically important small island - affect their ability to remain in power?

This war comes down to one thing, and you're going to push back megahard on it: Clearing the board. Venezuela was a board-clearing exercise. Iran was. Cuba is next (and they're talking to us right now).

Yep, I'll push back. Venezuela hasn't been cleared - it's still run by a socialist authoritarian dictatorship that's a firm ally of China. Iran hasn't been cleared - it's still run by a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist dictatorship that's a firm ally of China. Cuba might be next - we'll see what happens - but unless the regime is willing to fundamentally change what it is, it's not clear what the benefits will be to us.

It should be beyond obvious to anyone not on Barack Obama's or Joe Biden's foreign policy team that a nuclear-armed Iran that had ballistic missile capabilities was a dire threat to the region and US National Security across the board.

It was beyond obvious to both Obama's and Biden's foreign policy team that a nuclear-armed Iran that had ballistic missile capabilities was a dire threat. No one disputes that - either then or now. The difference isn't the threat assessment. The difference is in assessing whether fighting an aerial war against Iran will make enough of a material difference in that threat to be worth the sizable costs.

Because the regime controls one of the larger countries and economies of the world, you cannot physically prevent them from being able to have ballistic missiles just by using air power. Israel and the U.S. bombed the bejeebus out of their ballistic missile sites and manufacturing program in the 12 Day War last year, and it didn't take them even a year to get back to being a full on threat. Similarly, you can't bomb them out of trying to get a nuclear weapon - again, that's what happened in the 12 Day War, and they were right back at it again.

It's early days, but right now it looks like Obama and Biden were right. There wasn't an available "Plan B" that would eliminate the Iranian nuclear or ballistic missile threat simply by attacking them. Their assessment that attacking the country wouldn't yield the desired effect appears to be spot on. Again, who knows - the regime might end up falling despite having survived the biggest hits, or Trump might decide to authorize a full ground invasion, or some other event might happen. But right now, the more likely outcome is that we come out of this war with the same regime still in charge, with them having been proven right that the only way to safeguard Iran's security is to have a nuclear weapon because the rules-based international order won't stop the U.S. or Israel.

"Main shot" does not imply only doing one thing. Quite the opposite - it implies doing more than one thing, of which one is the most significant. And that's absolutely what happened. It's hard to imagine what 'shot' would be more significant than the decapitating attack that took out nearly all of the country's then-leadership all at once. That was the moment when the regime's stability and continuity plans would have undergone their biggest stress: most of the decision-makers killed at once, the successors having whatever internal jockeying for power all happening at the same time and under extreme duress, all during the fog of ongoing attacks by the U.S.

Then this is incorrect. There have been several 'shots'. Their Navy is gone, their air defense is gone and now it looks like their ballistic missile production is gone. Drones are next.

But unlike Libya, where the old regime immediately collapsed upon Gaddafi's death, the Iranian regime successfully implemented their contingency planning and maintained control of the country. There's been no sign of any civil war starting, intelligence consistently reports that the IRGC maintains firm control over the country and the Iranian populace, and there's no public sign of any weakening of the political or military command structures.

Define "control" of the country. There's an army of Kurds over their border. Do they control that area? Is the IRGC issuing orders to anyone there?

What's the contrary take? If the regime didn't collapse after the decapitating strike, what's the "shot" we take that causes them to collapse? Seizing Kharg Island would be a significant event - but is it plausible that it would bring down the regime? Why would the U.S. seizing a single island literally on the other side of the country from Tehran - even a critically important small island - affect their ability to remain in power?

Because all their currency is driven by oil sales and all their thugs need to be paid. What happens if they land the MEU/MEF on Kharj island and take it over?
Let it play out.

Yep, I'll push back. Venezuela hasn't been cleared - it's still run by a socialist authoritarian dictatorship that's a firm ally of China. Iran hasn't been cleared - it's still run by a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist dictatorship that's a firm ally of China. Cuba might be next - we'll see what happens - but unless the regime is willing to fundamentally change what it is, it's not clear what the benefits will be to us.

Oh, okay. I must have missed the giant show of force the Chinese made to keep their ally in the fold.

It was beyond obvious to both Obama's and Biden's foreign policy team that a nuclear-armed Iran that had ballistic missile capabilities was a dire threat. No one disputes that - either then or now. The difference isn't the threat assessment. The difference is in assessing whether fighting an aerial war against Iran will make enough of a material difference in that threat to be worth the sizable costs.

LOl. Those guys were so concerned about Iran's ballistic missile programs that the JCPOA - which Iran ended up ignoring anyway - never mentioned their missiles. Obama's policies in particular strengthened Iran as a regional hegemon.

It's early days, but right now it looks like Obama and Biden were right.

Sorry, but they aren't in the same zip code as "right". In fact you can draw a bright line between the JCPOA and Obama's coddling of the mullahs to October 7th.

As I've said, let it play out. The IDF is working its way down the list of bad actors:

https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/203244464751604...

(Video of a couple of regime thugs meeting their maker)

Reports are emerging of multiple new attacks targeting Basij militia units, the street-level enforcers used by Iran’s Islamic regime to police neighbourhoods and suppress dissent.

Several checkpoints and militia positions are said to have been hit overnight, continuing a pattern of strikes against the regime’s internal security network.

The Basij have long served as the front line of the dictatorship’s control on the streets — running checkpoints, monitoring civilians, and crushing protests.

Now those same units appear to be coming under sustained and systematic attack.

If the reports continue to mount, it could signal a serious weakening of the regime’s ability to control the streets inside Iran.

Define "control" of the country. There's an army of Kurds over their border. Do they control that area? Is the IRGC issuing orders to anyone there?

They are the governing body of the country that exercises all of the national police power over all areas of the country. By definition, this does not include areas "over the border."

Because all their currency is driven by oil sales and all their thugs need to be paid. What happens if they land the MEU/MEF on Kharj island and take it over?

Very little. Oh, sure, it's really bad for the Iranian economy - it would certainly damage their GDP. But not by enough to matter. Thugs who control the government are usually able to make sure they're the last people who take a pay cut. It would be bad for ordinary Iranians, but the IRGC is always going to get their money.

Oh, okay. I must have missed the giant show of force the Chinese made to keep their ally in the fold.

There was no giant show of force, because China's alliances aren't predicated on a giant show of force. Venezula is China's ally not because China has forced them to be by military might, but because Venezuela is a socialist dictatorship that has relied on hostility to the U.S. for nominal legitimacy and has deep economic and investment ties with China.

At least, that's what they were before we removed Maduro. Today, they are a socialist dictatorship that has relied on hostility to the U.S. for nominal legitimacy and has deep economic and investment ties with China.

You see? China didn't need to use s show of force to keep their ally in the fold, because their alliance is based on geopolitical and economic factors. The U.S., on the other hand, can only get Venezuela to do things only on matters of oil exports (for the most part), and even then only for the exact length of time that we maintain a significant naval presence in their vicinity.

Sorry, but they aren't in the same zip code as "right". In fact you can draw a bright line between the JCPOA and Obama's coddling of the mullahs to October 7th.

I think you misunderstand my point. They were "right," in the sense that there was not an easy an effective alternative solution to the Iran problem in the form of military invasion. They were right in recognizing that the likely outcome of a military invasion is that the situation doesn't get any better, and we end up wasting enormous resources to come out the other side with the exact same problem we had going in. To wit, an authoritarian dictatorship that both desires to present a security threat to its neighbors and has a large enough economy to be able to acquire the means to present that security threat no matter what the U.S. does.

Trump thinks that there was a military solution to that problem that Obama and Biden were too "weak" to implement, rather than being too "smart" to implement. We'll see. It's early days, but again the initial effects of the war are to show that Obama and Biden were right not to attack Iran. We've blown tens of billions of dollars in military resources and caused the biggest oil crisis in generations, and at least as of time of writing we have pretty much the exact same regime in place now as when we went in.

They are the governing body of the country that exercises all of the national police power over all areas of the country. By definition, this does not include areas "over the border."

There's a Kurdish army over Iran's borders. The IRGC calling the shots in that region?

Very little.

Sure, okay.

I think you misunderstand my point. They were "right," in the sense that there was not an easy an effective alternative solution to the Iran problem in the form of military invasion. They were right in recognizing that the likely outcome of a military invasion is that the situation doesn't get any better, and we end up wasting enormous resources to come out the other side with the exact same problem we had going in. To wit, an authoritarian dictatorship that both desires to present a security threat to its neighbors and has a large enough economy to be able to acquire the means to present that security threat no matter what the U.S. does.

Then they're even more wrong. Their actions actively accelerated Iran's position in the region and led to the deaths of thousands of people in Israel and beyond.

As to the rest, let it play out.

Reports are emerging of multiple new attacks targeting Basij militia units, the street-level enforcers used by Iran’s Islamic regime to police neighbourhoods and suppress dissent.

Several checkpoints and militia positions are said to have been hit overnight, continuing a pattern of strikes against the regime’s internal security network.

Yeah, probably not anything to rest your hopes on anytime soon. The Basij are everywhere in Iran - they have about a million active members, and somewhere between 40,000 and 54,000 "bases" spread throughout the country. They're the gruntiest of the low-level grunts, and many (most?) are just entry-level minor players that assist the regime but are strategically irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij#Size,_bases

So hitting "several" checkpoints and militia positions are highly unlikely to have any material impact over any materially relevant period of time. We'll see how it goes, but the clock is ticking. We've used up probably about a quarter of the time we have to conduct this operation - if the Straits remain closed for more than another six weeks, the global economic catastrophe will make the Great Recession look like a mild downturn, and I don't think Trump has the stomach for that. I also don't think we have an effective option for opening the Strait as long as the regime wants it closed. So if we're going to try to undo the regime by knocking out Basij checkpoints, we're not going to be able to achieve that by hitting modest enough numbers that one would report that "several...are said to have been hit overnight." It would have to be massive numbers and unequivocal.

There's a Kurdish army over Iran's borders. The IRGC calling the shots in that region?

Literally within the area under the Kurdish army? Perhaps not. But I don't think that matters, strategically, to the question of whether the IRGC is still in control of Iran - having a small remote area at the very edge of the country home to a restive minority with aspirations of independence isn't ideal for any country, but not really a meaningful indicator that the national government is about to be displaced.

Very little.

Sure, okay.

Yes, seriously. As I mentioned in the other thread, Libya's been riven by civil war for a decade now - but the Libyan security forces still get paid. Imposing an economic cost on a country can inflict a lot of pain on a lot of people inside that country, but in a military dictatorship that economic pain is going to land on the military itself last. You can't cut the IRGC off from being able to pay its people by hitting Kharg Island.

So hitting "several" checkpoints and militia positions are highly unlikely to have any material impact over any materially relevant period of time. We'll see how it goes, but the clock is ticking. We've used up probably about a quarter of the time we have to conduct this operation - if the Straits remain closed for more than another six weeks, the global economic catastrophe will make the Great Recession look like a mild downturn, and I don't think Trump has the stomach for that. I also don't think we have an effective option for opening the Strait as long as the regime wants it closed. So if we're going to try to undo the regime by knocking out Basij checkpoints, we're not going to be able to achieve that by hitting modest enough numbers that one would report that "several...are said to have been hit overnight." It would have to be massive numbers and unequivocal.

<Venkman>
Dogs and cats, living together, Mass hysteria!
</Venkman>

Then they're even more wrong. Their actions actively accelerated Iran's position in the region and led to the deaths of thousands of people in Israel and beyond.

Do you think Obama should have invaded, then? Gone in and attacked Iran? Would you have supported him undertaking that war, if he had done so?

Literally within the area under the Kurdish army? Perhaps not.

Then there you go. The IRGC is *not* in charge everywhere. At some point they'll have to root them out of what I'm sure the Kurds are going to think of as "Kurdistan" proper.

<Venkman>
Dogs and cats, living together, Mass hysteria!
</Venkman>,

Not much of a response. I don't think there's really much dispute that if the Straits remain closed for an extensed period of time it would cause massive disruption in the global economy. The IEA can replace the lost output of oil (though not of the agricultural products and industrial feedstocks) for a short period of time, but at 20 million bpd they realistically can only do that for three to four weeks.

Do you really think that wouldn't result in a significant economic downturn?

Do you think Obama should have invaded, then? Gone in and attacked Iran? Would you have supported him undertaking that war, if he had done so?

You mean in the incredibly unlikely event that Barack Obama for once got some piece of foreign policy right? Who knows; it depends on how it played out.

But sitting there and pretending that Iran was somehow going to turn into a country that follows the Rules based international order is beyond folly.

The thing people don't realize is that *Iran* has been at war with *us* since 1979. We honestly should have bombed their ballistic missile factories the second they demonstrated the capability. We allowed them to do whatever they wanted for far too long; Bush should have been getting their IED factories, for example.

Not much of a response.

Because you're repeating your opinion and not covering any new ground. I'll remind you that your opinion is just that.

Who knows; it depends on how it played out.

But sitting there and pretending that Iran was somehow going to turn into a country that follows the Rules based international order is beyond folly.

How is it beyond folly if there wasn't an alternative? In other words, if you don't think Obama should have invaded and wouldn't have supported it, then what was the solution that would have been self-evidently better than trying to reduce the threat through diplomacy?

And I'll let Sen. Fetterman answer:

"I would just like to remind everybody watching that every single Democratic presidential candidate always identified that Iran is a top, top security issue," Fetterman said. "And every single Democrat in the Senate and in the House, you know, says we can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb."

"Kamala Harris, when she was running just back in 24, she identified Iran as her top, top international concern," Fetterman said. "And now she, of course, would never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. And now someone actually made that virtually impossible after this operation. I truly don't understand why Democrats can't even acknowledge that this has made the world more safe and more secure, you know, not just all of us, but not just especially the region as well, too. You know, for me, the only thing I can figure out is that it just happens to have been Donald Trump doing it."

How is it beyond folly if there wasn't an alternative?

And there it is. I was waiting for the "Oh, well, what can we do?" throwing up of hands and here it is.

Then why not let them out from under sanctions? Why not let them nuke Israel and a couple of US cities for good measure? Why bother with anything?

Iran is a cancer. Always has been. For some inexplicable reason we've been putting up with it for 40 plus years.

Because you're repeating your opinion and not covering any new ground. I'll remind you that your opinion is just that.

It's just my opinion. But I like to think that I've made a serious effort to explain why I hold that opinion, and the defects in the contrary argument. Which is why people have discussions about opinions, rather than simply loudly declaring them at each other. Plus, I don't think we've really discussed this aspect of the war yet.

Do you believe we can go past 5-6 weeks of the Straits being closed without having a serious global economic consequence? If not, do you believe we have the ability to stop Iran from threatening commercial traffic in the Straits? What would that look like? The existing regime certainly has maintained the ability to wage low-level asymmetric warfare against the U.S. - not anything that would let them stand toe-to-toe on a conventional battlefield, but certainly enough to threaten various oil tankers.

And now she, of course, would never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. And now someone actually made that virtually impossible after this operation. I truly don't understand why Democrats can't even acknowledge that this has made the world more safe and more secure, you know, not just all of us, but not just especially the region as well, too.

Fetterman's just operating off a false premise.

How has this made it virtually impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb? They're in not much of a different position now than they were a few months ago, after we had completely destroyed ("obliterated") their then-existing nuclear facilities. They're not under any different economic sanctions going forward. They're not under any different technological controls than they were going forward. They don't have any greater impediments to obtaining centrifuge or other nuclear technology going forward.

So if they posed a danger to restart and rebuild their nuclear program before we went in two weeks ago, why will they pose any less of a danger to restart and rebuild their nuclear program once we stop actually bombing them?

Iran is a cancer. Always has been. For some inexplicable reason we've been putting up with it for 40 plus years.

Two reasons:

1) First, as I'll remind you, there is a large segment of the population and the political spectrum that does not believe it is America's job to use its own blood and treasure to excise the cancers of the world. You know, the ones who opposed getting involved in foreign wars. Makes it very hard for the U.S. to commit many tens of billions of dollars in some foreign "excursion" (to borrow the President's phrase).

2) Second, not all cancers respond to surgery. Some are completely inoperable. You can't always just cut a cancer out, because it will simply grow back.

So it's pretty explicable. No one's been able to rationally articulate why going to war with Iran would improve things sufficiently to justify the massive investment in military resources that it would require.

This is not just "Oh, well, what can we do?" It's one thing to disagree with the foreign policy choices of Obama or Biden - but it's another to dismiss them as folly if you don't have a plausible suggestion for what they should have done instead.

You can't operate under the following syllogism:

We have to do something about this problem.
X is something.
Therefore we have to do X.

...because it's a logical fallacy. Just because invading Iran is a different foreign policy than that of Obama and Biden's doesn't mean it's a better foreign policy. It just means it's different.

Unless, again, you think that Obama or Biden should have invaded Iran, and you would have supported them if they had?

It's just my opinion. But I like to think that I've made a serious effort to explain why I hold that opinion, and the defects in the contrary argument.

Sure. And I've laid out my opinion already.

Do you believe we can go past 5-6 weeks of the Straits being closed without having a serious global economic consequence?

Why do you say the straits will be closed for 5-6 weeks? They're not closed at the moment; ships are turning off their transponders and making the run for it plus the Saudis are upping their pipeline throughput.

How has this made it virtually impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb?

There is new information: that the Iranians *already had* enough fissile material to make not 1 bomb, but 11. They certainly haven't been enriching anything at any of the sites we blew up late last year.

So if they posed a danger to restart and rebuild their nuclear program before we went in two weeks ago, why will they pose any less of a danger to restart and rebuild their nuclear program once we stop actually bombing them?

Because again, the new info is that they do in fact have enough material to start making nukes. And after that, hanging it on a ballistic missile.

So it's pretty explicable. No one's been able to rationally articulate why going to war with Iran would improve things sufficiently to justify the massive investment in military resources that it would require.

This is not just "Oh, well, what can we do?" It's one thing to disagree with the foreign policy choices of Obama or Biden - but it's another to dismiss them as folly if you don't have a plausible suggestion for what they should have done instead.

Yes, it is. You oppose what we're doing and you're stating as such. Noted.

You've not said what it is that *you* would do differently other than "not attack". You're just saying that what we're doing is a complete waste of time destined to fail.

I get that. Problem is you're inserting your own logical fallacy (the only person talking about invading Iran is you, modulo the Marines potentially seizing Kharg island).

I'm going to assume you're a supporter of the Obama/Biden policy of

1. Make a deal with Iran where they allegedly stop working on enriching uranium for 10 years
2. Pay them with billions of dollars
3. Don't mention their support for international terror groups
4. Ignore their ballistic missile programs altogether.

Is that correct?

In that case, the killing must continue, until albaby thinks Iran is not a potentially viable nuclear force in the future.

Let us know when Trump has done sufficient killing for you, Albaby.

Because again, the new info is that they do in fact have enough material to start making nukes. And after that, hanging it on a ballistic missile.

But that wasn't the question. The question was, "why will they pose any less of a danger to restart and rebuild their nuclear program once we stop actually bombing them?"

In other words, if they have enough material to start making nukes, and existing technology transfer controls weren't sufficient to stop them from turning that material into nukes two weeks ago before the bombing, what's going to stop them from turning that material into nukes ____ weeks from now when we stop bombing?

The same question is true of Iran's ballistic missiles. They were able to rebuild their ballistic missile inventory almost entirely within about months after the 12 Day War. We've destroyed their ballistic missile factories, but there's nothing that will prevent them from rebuilding the factories - and thereafter rebuilding the missiles - once this war is over.


This isn't me being argumentative. I genuinely don't understand the reasoning. A few months ago, we had destroyed their equipment, leaving them with only whatever material they had previously refined. So if Iran was in a position to restart their nuclear program and advance quickly to a weapon then, why won't they be able to do so in a few weeks or months from now?

Dope1,

As albaby perhaps unintentionally implied in his typical sophistry hair splitting semantics on this issue, the essential goals of 1) completing and permanently eliminating Iran's potential or actual nuclear weapons capability--be it by regime change or just by killing all of the Islamic jihadists who keep popping up like whack a moles, until they are all gone; 2) neutralizing, forever, their ability to block the straits of Hormuz or otherwise interfering with the flow of oil; 3) eliminating their ability to project power beyond their borders, conventionally or otherwise, either with their own military forces or through the use of proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

I agree with albaby to the extent these essential goals have not been met.

Trump needs to keep going.

Dope1,

Yes I'm sure Witkoff was relating what actually happened. The Iranians were straight forward about their intentions. Basically double daring us to do anything about it.

I'm sure that's exactly what they told the Obama administration too.

Albaby1,

You keep making arguments that Trump is not doing enough to stop the Iranians from making nukes.

Your conclusion is that we should, therefore, allow Iran to make nukes.

That's bizarre.

The natural and logical conclusion to your proposition is that Trump should apply more force until all the people in Iran who want to make nukes are dead.

But that wasn't the question. The question was, "why will they pose any less of a danger to restart and rebuild their nuclear program once we stop actually bombing them?"


Because it takes facilities and live engineers to build weapons. Blow up the facilities and kill their engineers, it's much harder.

This isn't me being argumentative. I genuinely don't understand the reasoning. A few months ago, we had destroyed their equipment, leaving them with only whatever material they had previously refined. So if Iran was in a position to restart their nuclear program and advance quickly to a weapon then, why won't they be able to do so in a few weeks or months from now?

Will we let them? That's the question. Also why this needs to play out.

I'm going to assume you're a supporter of the Obama/Biden policy of

1. Make a deal with Iran where they allegedly stop working on enriching uranium for 10 years
2. Pay them with billions of dollars
3. Don't mention their support for international terror groups
4. Ignore their ballistic missile programs altogether.

Is that correct?

No. I don't know what the answer is with Iran. I don't think it's wise to ignore their ballistic missile program; but I also don't know how you can stop a country the size of Iran from having as many ballistic missiles as they want to build. Short of a full on ground invasion a la Iraq, that is.

Similarly, we don't know how the JCPOA would have worked out if Trump hadn't cancelled the deal. The big explosion in Iranian centrifuges happened in 2022-2023:

Overall, Iran has 12,994 centrifuges installed at all three of its enrichment plants; 5763 advanced centrifuges of various types and 7231 IR-1 centrifuges.

Between February 2022 to February 2023, Iran nearly tripled its annual deployment of advanced centrifuges to over 3500 advanced centrifuges deployed during that time span, compared to the deployment of about 1200 advanced centrifuges observed between February 2022 and February 2021, which itself was double that from the year prior, February 2020 to February 2021, during which roughly 500 advanced centrifuges were deployed.

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/updated-highl....

Since Iran's primary enrichment activities and materials ramp didn't happen during the JCPOA, but happened after it was cancelled, I'm a little more agnostic than you about whether it was possible to bribe Iran out of trying for nukes with a mix of returning their assets, sanctions relief, and promises not to kill them. It very well might not have worked, but we didn't give it a whole of time to see. I'm open to the possibility that they would have kept on enriching uranium after a while anyway.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that I, an ordinary person, do not have the solutions to one of the most complex geopolitical problems in the modern world. Shocking - I know! But I am also refraining from labelling as folly other people's efforts to find a solution to that problem as well. Just as you are critical of what Obama was trying to accomplish with the JCPOA and convinced it was unlikely to work, I am critical of the current exercise in trying to bomb our way out of this security dilemma without a ground invasion. I think it is unlikely to work, because I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of how it is supposed to achieve that goal.

It's one thing to stomp our feet and declare, "X cannot happen!" - but that doesn't mean that any given plan will actually succeed at stopping X from happening. If technology controls and sanctions can't stop a country from developing a nuclear weapon, then you have to figure out a way to stop the country from wanting the nuclear weapon. That can be bribes, or threats, or going in and actually eliminating the regime that is seeking the nuke. It's hard to see, though, how a mostly aerial and naval engagement that doesn't involve boots on the ground gets you there. At least trying to induce them to not seek nukes has a possible path for the outcome you want. Here...what's the mechanism by which Iran is no longer able to pursue their nuclear program in six months or a year, when there was no obstacle to them doing so two weeks ago?

Because it takes facilities and live engineers to build weapons. Blow up the facilities and kill their engineers, it's much harder.

But we did that already. Back in June. It only took them a few months to get their nuclear program back to where it was a threat again. It only took them a few months to completely replenish their ballistic missile inventory.

Iran is a big country with a lot of resources - you're never going to be able to stop them from having facilities and engineers. So how does this actually stop them from having ballistic missiles or a nuclear program, if there wasn't anything stopping them after the 12 Day War?

Will we let them? That's the question. Also why this needs to play out.

Why is that the question? We're not going to be in a position to "let them" or not let them once the war is over. We'll have gone home. Iran will continue to be a big sovereign county. If we weren't in a position to not "let them" develop nukes before the current war, how will we be in a position to "let them" or not let them after the war?

This isn't a let it play out kind of question. We might have a game plan for how this stops them from being in a position to restart their nuclear program after the war, and not be able to execute the game plan - or have events interfere with the game plan. But I don't understand the game plan - what we intend to happen that would prevent them from being able to restart their nuke program. If we don't invade with a massive number of ground troops and take over Iran for ourselves, what is going to stop the Iranian government in ___ months time from just restarting their nuke program from exactly the same spot as after the June 2025 war?

having a small remote area at the very edge of the country home to a restive minority with aspirations of independence isn't ideal for any country, but not really a meaningful indicator that the national government is about to be displaced.

Parts of Idaho and eastern Washington state ring THAT bell. And have for some years.

You've not said what it is that *you* would do differently other than "not attack".

Found those WMDs in Iraq yet?

How did the War on Afghanistan turn out? Why?

And so on.

Thus far, RWNJ foreign wars have been total failures--as usual.

Spankee's Iran War is all his. Own it.

Now, state what it takes to ACTUALLY "win" it. Not just declare "WE WON !!" and then run away, as Spankee did in Afghanistan.

Unless, again, you think that Obama or Biden should have invaded Iran, and you would have supported them if they had?

I like that rhetorical question, but we all know what the reality would be.

FOX would scream bloody murder about what a terrible idea it was and Dope would repeat whatever they told him to believe.

But we did that already. Back in June. It only took them a few months to get their nuclear program back to where it was a threat again.

We took out their centrifuges (that we knew about) last time. We did not get their fissile material as they managed to spirit it away.

So we (this board) don’t know if the material they had is new or if it was enriched at another site or if it even exists at all.

Meanwhile, Trump says they just destroyed all the military assets on Kharg island but left the oil infrastructure alone.

We did not get their fissile material as they managed to spirit it away.

Think the Marines are on the way, to try a raid to steal the U?

Six U.S. airmen die in crash; 2,500 Marines being sent to the Middle East

As Hegseth delivered his remarks, the USS Tripoli amphibious assault ship and some 2,500 Marines prepared to embark on a two-week journey from Japan to the Middle East on his orders, the Associated Press and other outlets reported.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/articles/6-u-...

iirc, the Omani mediator reported the Iranians were willing to give up all the enriched U they had, peacefully, but that would not have destroyed the governing structure of Iran, as "Bibi" demands.

on Kharg island but left the oil infrastructure alone.

Kharg is only a loading terminal. It's useless if the infrastructure that delivers the oil to the terminal is destroyed.

Steve

No one but an utter fool would bother spending a single second parsing anything Trump says.


Concur. Now let’s add a corollary: only a fool will engage the acolytes of the Cheeto. So…stop.

To sum up:
"I changed my mind, war is good now." ~Dope

"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing." ~George Orwell, 1984

We took out their centrifuges (that we knew about) last time. We did not get their fissile material as they managed to spirit it away.

So we (this board) don’t know if the material they had is new or if it was enriched at another site or if it even exists at all.

Meanwhile, Trump says they just destroyed all the military assets on Kharg island but left the oil infrastructure alone.

All of which may be true, but it still doesn't answer the question. Which is what are we doing in this war that is going to actually change Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon, if destroying all their centrifuges and bombing all their facilities in the last war did not?

From what you're describing, it sounds like you think we would have to physically remove their fissile material from the country. But that would almost certainly require ground troops, no? We'd have to have folks go into the country, seize the facility(ies) where the material is being stored (after finding out where it is), and then remove the materials? You can't do that with bombs and missiles - you have to have people go in if you want to actually remove the material. But so far, that doesn't seem to be the plan - and I think it's somewhat unlikely that Trump wants to send in troops.

I mean, it's good that the military was able to execute the operational objective of bombing all the military assets on Kharg Island - but that wouldn't advance the strategic goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon one bit. After all, whatever military assets were on Kharg Island wouldn't have been used in their nuclear program. I can't see how it advances any other strategic goals in the war, either - Iran hasn't been in a position to counter us with conventional military force since the first few days of the war (if ever they were). Right now, their threat is through asymmetric warfare. Taking out fixed military assets on Kharg wouldn't affect that.

We're back to the same question - how is any of this making Iran less able to acquire a nuclear weapon? We established in the 12-Day war that bombing their enrichment facilities wouldn't stop it. They're a big economy, so they're going to be able to rebuild all their missile production capacity in relatively short order whenever we stop the bombs - and obviously our technology control regime isn't interfering with their ability to acquire the necessary tech. If we went in with a large number of ground troops, we could seize enough of the country to remove the regime or find the uranium and take it from them......but we're not doing that. So what are we actually doing that's going to make them less able to have nukes?

Oh jeez Ranger Rick, the self-declared gate keeper, strikes again.

Go back to middle school dude.

Can't believe they actually allowed you to command a company of soldiers during your career.

I would love for you to be honest about what actually happened.

Replying to albaby1
We took out their centrifuges (that we knew about) last time. We did not get their fissile material as they managed to spirit it away.

So we (this board) don’t know if the material they had is new or if it was enriched at another site or if it even exists at all.

Meanwhile, Trump says they just destroyed all the military assets on Kharg island but left the oil infrastructure alone.

All of which may be true, but it still doesn't answer the question. Which is what are we doing in this war that is going to actually change Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon, if destroying all their centrifuges and bombing all their facilities in the last war did not?

From what you're describing, it sounds like you think we would have to physically remove their fissile material from the country. But that would almost certainly require ground troops, no? We'd have to have folks go into the country, seize the facility(ies) where the material is being stored (after finding out where it is), and then remove the materials? You can't do that with bombs and missiles - you have to have people go in if you want to actually remove the material. But so far, that doesn't seem to be the plan - and I think it's somewhat unlikely that Trump wants to send in troops.

I mean, it's good that the military was able to execute the operational objective of bombing all the military assets on Kharg Island - but that wouldn't advance the strategic goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon one bit. After all, whatever military assets were on Kharg Island wouldn't have been used in their nuclear program. I can't see how it advances any other strategic goals in the war, either - Iran hasn't been in a position to counter us with conventional military force since the first few days of the war (if ever they were). Right now, their threat is through asymmetric warfare. Taking out fixed military assets on Kharg wouldn't affect that.

We're back to the same question - how is any of this making Iran less able to acquire a nuclear weapon? We established in the 12-Day war that bombing their enrichment facilities wouldn't stop it. They're a big economy, so they're going to be able to rebuild all their missile production capacity in relatively short order whenever we stop the bombs - and obviously our technology control regime isn't interfering with their ability to acquire the necessary tech. If we went in with a large number of ground troops, we could seize enough of the country to remove the regime or find the uranium and take it from them......but we're not doing that. So what are we actually doing that's going to make them less able to have nukes?

*********************

The above exemplifies the insane, defeatist attitude of the Left. Finding all kinds of reasons why trying to do something worthwhile should not be done at all, because it can't be done perfectly, or it may take many repeated attempts, or it may take a very long time, or it may cost a lot of money, or a lot of troops, or a lot of whatever the cost might be.

What a shitty shitty attitude. Good thing Ronald Reagan didn't think that way. If you were in charge in the 1980's The Soviet Unioin would be ruling the entire world by now.

Yes, beating religiously fanatical, evil foreign leaders is difficult. VERY difficult. Because they're fanatical and they're evil and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their objectives.

You would be singing a different tune if you ever contemplated whether an Iranian nuclear capability might ever affect YOU, personally, or YOUR loved ones some day in a very negative way.

The unstated assumption in all the bullshit you have incessantly posted on this issue is that you obviously don't think Iran's nuclear policy could ever have any negative effect on you, personally, or on your loved ones or on anyone you know personally.

The typical elitist, wealthy, living in a bubble libtard.

"You keep making arguments that Trump is not doing enough to stop the Iranians from making nukes.

Your conclusion is that we should, therefore, allow Iran to make nukes." - Marco the Russian Clown

I know English is your second language, but Albaby hasn't said anything like that. You are making it up.

You are still destined to die in a ditch somewhere in Ukraine for your repeated failures.

I know English is your second language, but Albaby hasn't said anything like that. You are making it up.

Yes, he seems to misunderstand. I'm saying that what Trump is doing doesn't seem at all likely to stop the Iranian from making nukes. That doesn't mean that we should allow Iran to make nukes. It just means that what we're doing won't stop them from making nukes...so maybe there's not as much benefit to doing it as people claim? Since it won't actually stop them from making nukes after the war?

Trump (and others) keep pointing out how much of Iran's conventional military capacity we've destroyed. Which we have. Our military is very good at destroying other nation's conventional military capacity, and they've executed very well. But the problem is that destroying their conventional military capacity doesn't stop them from making nukes when the war is over. Blowing up their airfields and sinking their ships doesn't stop them from making nukes when the war is over. Even destroying their ballistic missiles doesn't stop them from making nukes when the war is over - they don't actually use the missiles to build the nukes, and they'll be able to build more ballistic missiles and rebuild the factories that make ballistic missiles after the war is over.

So what's the operational plan for achieving the goal of stopping them from having nukes? Bombing their conventional military capacity just degrades their conventional military capacity. Not permanently, of course - they'll be able to rearm once we stop bombing them, just like they did after the 12-day war. But regardless, it only damages their conventional military capacity - it doesn't stop them from restarting their nuke program the day after the bombs stop.

Our air power is superb at blowing things up from afar. But it can't really be used to achieve strategic goals that can't be accomplished by blowing things up from afar. And I haven't seen any explanation of how blowing things up from afar can actually stop Iran from restarting their nuke program once we stop bombing them.

actually stop Iran from restarting their nuke program once we stop bombing them.

Follow the Bibi, Marco, Dope plan: never stop bombing.

Problem solved.

Follow the Bibi, Marco, Dope plan: never stop bombing.

Yup. Bomb them into the stone age, then infiltrate Mossad and CIA agents into their midst, to keep agitating the factions to kill each-other. As I heard Ian Bremmer suggest on DW News recently, that is the outcome "Bibi" wants, leaving "lots and lots of dead Iranians".

"Bibi" has the same playbook for Lebanon. The Israeli Finance Minister has promised to make Beirut look like Khan Unis in Gaza, a total wreck. Retired Israeli General Uzi Dayan has said he wants everyone to be "expelled" from Lebanon. Onward ethnic cleansing and genocide. Onward "Greater Israel".

And USians like you and I are paying for it.

Steve

What a shitty shitty attitude. Good thing Ronald Reagan didn't think that way.

Ronnie Raygun did what he was told--and he "ran away". Does "Beirut" ring a bell???

"Bibi" has the same playbook for Lebanon.

Today's news on the Lebanon occupation/annexation project.

Entire families wiped out and towns emptied as Israel’s war on Lebanon intensifies

Communities displaced and destroyed while death toll rises faster than during any previous war in Lebanon

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/leba...

Israel planning massive ground invasion of Lebanon, officials say

https://www.axios.com/2026/03/14/israel-lebanon-gr...

Now that "Bibi" has gotten Trump the Great and Powerful fully committed to knocking down Iran, I expect Israel to pivot to bringing it's entire military to bear on overrunning and annexing Lebanon.

It occurs to me, the 2500 Marines currently in transit from the far east, are so totally inadequate to take on the IRGC, I more likely think they will be used to cover Israel's flank in Lebanon, the same way Saint Reagan used them 40 years ago...and we remember how that turned out.

Steve

Does "Beirut" ring a bell???

And Saint Reagan wagged the dog in Grenada to get the Marine barracks bombing off the front page. Over 200 of our guys died for Israel in one day.

Steve

What a shitty shitty attitude. Good thing Ronald Reagan didn't think that way.

Would that be the same Ronald Reagan who was president when terrorists killed 307 people in the middle east (Lebanon) with truck bombs, including 241 U.S military personnel?

Thankfully, because of Reagan’s actions, we currently have a thriving democracy in Lebanon.

Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.