"So does the Iranian regime finally fall THIS TIME?" Topic

"Try not to blame traitors"

They lost the 2024 election. 😏

John don't need to. I'm already happy.

Ayatollah, many of his administration, generals and many of his family…dead.
Way too long in coming and payback for years of terrorism. ☠️

The Iranian navy and most of their Air Force ☠️

More of the manufacturing and ability to deliver ordnance degraded.

No, or very little air defense left.

Israel seems to be getting tired of being held back and are ready to hit targets to destroy infrastructure and oil. Ie the ability of Iran to make money and keep power and water running. I think we are the only ones holding them back now.

Since many of you like rumors, lots of those floating around about the current fate of the son.

Like said, we can go back and rinse and repeat.

Probably a good thing I'm not in charge. They hit a tanker, I sink one of theirs with oil (most have hit a mine).

What if we minded their harbors? 🤨

SB the media does not put those together as one big plan. Even though it is.

Does not fit their narrative.

SB. Speaking of oil. I assume you saw this today. Way overdue IMO.

"Element Fuels has received the necessary permitting to construct and operate a refinery capable of producing in excess of 160,000 barrels, or approximately 6.7 million gallons, per day of finished gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel," its founder and Co-CEO John Calce said in 2024. "A permit for a greenfield refinery of this size, scope, and functionality has not been granted in the United States since the 1970's. This speaks to the innovative approaches we are taking to address climate and sustainability concerns in cleaner, greener ways that are new to the refinery space."

Generational construction is expected to begin in the second quarter of this year. It's expected to "produce enough low-carbon hydrogen to supply approximately 100% of the refinery's fuel requirements, essentially eliminating CO2 emissions," he explained. "Hydrogen produced in excess of the refinery's needs will be used to generate low carbon, utility-scale electricity from Element's hydrogen-capable combined-cycle gas turbine power plant." Anything over 100 MW of excess electricity generated will be made available to the Texas grid managed by the Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) "to reliably support the surrounding community's needs," the company said.

"Element Fuels is not only ushering in the next generation of clean fuels, we're also proving that, without a doubt, there is a way to produce higher quality, cleaner, higher-octane fuels that significantly advance the energy transition. This changes everything – for the industry, for consumers, and for the well-being of the planet," Calce said. The company contracted with McDermott, which provides engineering and construction solutions to the energy industry.
…

"Unlike older refineries designed for heavy foreign oil, this facility is specifically engineered to process 60 million barrels of American light shale crude annually, reducing domestic reliance on energy imports," Business and Industry Connection Magazine reported.

Now rebranded as America First Refining, it's expected to purchase and process 1.2 billion barrels of U.S. shale oil, valued at $125 USD billion, and produce 50 billion gallons of refined products, valued at $175 USD billion, over a 20-year-period. "Combined, the deal is projected to improve the U.S. trade imbalance by $300 USD billion," the magazine states.

"For the first time in half a century, the United States will build a refinery designed specifically for American shale oil," Calce said. "That is not a policy talking point. It is an engineering and economic reality that the industry has needed to address for a long time," BIC Magazine reported."

Some humor

Subject: Savakzadeh on X: "Sources confirm Mojtaba is alive and having a great weekend. t.co/7Z2rdU51U0 / X


link

This is unconfirmed but multiple sites reported it. 2nd use?

Subject: Eyal Ofer אייל עופר on X: "It is important to understand why the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) may have seen its second operational use in history: Iran was planning to manufacture around 200 missiles per month, with ambitions to ramp up production to 500. Within three years, such a facility could have t.co/GJXKnvVEMh / X


link

@35thOVI

Your point about regime change guaranteeing nothing is well taken. History shows plenty of examples where removing leadership didn't produce the political outcome expected.

The Putin analogy is also interesting. In many cases states and organizations continue their policies even after leadership losses, because the underlying institutions and strategic goals remain.

Where I'm less certain is the "rinse and repeat" idea. Repeated strikes are certainly possible, but adversaries usually adapt over time — dispersing infrastructure, hardening facilities, or shifting tactics. Additionally, there are no Western Military doctrines that endorse a solely air campaign to prevail in a conflict which is looking for sweeping concessions from the targeted foe. Simply escalating the punishment will increase damage but not necessarily produce desired strategic results.

Your proxy question is also worth watching. Hamas and the Houthis may simply be constrained or preserving capability for later phases of the conflict. In proxy wars escalation isn't always immediate.

You also asked how people define tactical versus strategic victory. In military terms they're usually distinguished roughly like this:

Tactical victory – success in specific military engagements: destroying ships, missile sites, air defenses, command facilities, etc. Based on the reports coming out, it certainly appears that a number of Iranian capabilities have taken heavy damage, which would fit that definition.

Strategic victory – achieving the long-term political objective that the war was meant to accomplish. Whether it is regime change or unconditional surrender.

That's the harder one to assess this early. If the strategic objective is degrading Iran's ability to threaten Israel and regional shipping with missiles, drones, and potentially nuclear capability, then the real test will be whether those capabilities remain suppressed over time.

Conflicts can often show strong tactical results early while the strategic outcome takes much much longer to become clear.

So it may be fair to say that significant tactical successes have already occrred, while the strategic outcome will probably only become clear over the longer term. TBC…

Has anyone considered what will happen when the airstrikes end and the revenge through terrorism manifests itself in all its splendor?… No one currently believes that the Iranian regime will disappear through a handful of Kurds and a bombardment until the shells run out… Can you imagine the hatred of those fanatics in the near future?

Armand

SB. Speaking of oil. I assume you saw this today. Way overdue IMO.

"Element Fuels has received the necessary permitting to construct and operate a refinery capable of producing in excess of 160,000 barrels, or approximately 6.7 million gallons, per day of finished gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel,

Yeah, but not in Cali where TWO more refineries are closing – including the one that makes most of the jet fuel for LAX and San Diego. And now Nevada just realized that it is also frucked because it's been getting av gas for Las Vegas and much of its gas from Cali refineries, and are now suing the state to force them to keep those refineries open.

Has anyone considered what will happen when the airstrikes end and the revenge through terrorism manifests itself in all its splendor?

Yes…but has "revenge through terrorism " EVER STOPPED AT ALL??? I would argue not…that the islmaist Iranian regime needs very little justification to promote its goal via terrorism.

Armand

Fundamentalist Muslims don't need a NEW reason they believe they've always had a reason and their holy writings justify it.

Iran had been terrorizing the U.S. since 1979. Israel as long. We worry about it all the time.

The difference this time. We had a President and an admin that hit Iran back.

Maybe it's time to print this again. This is just attacks on US assets and or citizens attributed to Iran or her proxies. Israel has its own list.

"1970s – 1980s: Post-Revolutionary Escalation

1979–1981: Iran Hostage Crisis. Revolutionary students, with Tehran's backing, seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

1983: U.S. Embassy Bombing (Beirut). A suicide car bombing by the Iran-backed Islamic Jihad (a precursor to Hezbollah) killed 63 people, including 17 Americans.

1983: Marine Barracks Bombing (Beirut). Hezbollah operatives drove a truck bomb into a U.S. Marine compound, killing 241 U.S. service members.

1983: U.S. Embassy Bombing (Kuwait City). Hezbollah operatives targeted the embassy with an explosives-filled truck; no Americans were harmed.

1984: Kidnapping of William Buckley. Islamic Jihad kidnapped the CIA station chief in Beirut; he was tortured and killed in 1985.

1984: Kuwait Airways Flight 221. Hezbollah hijacked the flight to Tehran, killing two U.S. USAID officials.

1985: TWA Flight 847. Hezbollah terrorists hijacked the flight and murdered a U.S. Navy diver.

1989: Killing of Col. William Higgins. Hezbollah killed the U.S. Marine Colonel after kidnapping him during a UN mission in Lebanon.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies

1990s – 2000s: Proxy and Global Operations

1995–1996: Suicide Bombings in Israel. Attacks by Iran-backed Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad killed several Americans on buses and at shopping centers.

1996: Khobar Towers Bombing (Saudi Arabia). Hezbollah Al-Hejaz bombed a U.S. Air Force housing complex, killing 19 U.S. airmen and wounding nearly 500.

1998: East Africa Embassy Bombings. Al-Qaeda bombers, allegedly facilitated by Hezbollah, struck U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 12 Americans.

2001–2003: Hamas Attacks in Israel/Gaza. Multiple suicide bombings (including the Sbarro pizzeria and Hebrew University) and a Gaza roadside bomb killed at least 12 Americans.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies

2020s: Direct Confrontation and Recent Proxy Strikes

2020: Ain al-Asad Airbase Attack (Iraq). Iran launched direct ballistic missile strikes in retaliation for the killing of Qasem Soleimani, causing traumatic brain injuries to 109 U.S. troops.

2021–2023: Iraq and Syria Rocket/Drone Strikes. Ongoing attacks by militias like Kataib Hezbollah frequently wounded U.S. personnel at bases in Erbil and Al-Tanf.

2023: October 7 Massacre (Israel). Iran-backed Hamas killed 46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 others.

2024: Tower 22 Attack (Jordan). A drone strike by Kataib Hezbollah killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded over 40.

2024–2025: Assassination Plots and Hostile Activity.
U.S. officials charged an Iranian national for a plot to assassinate Donald Trump.
Convictions were secured against agents plotting to kill journalist Masih Alinejad in New York.

In June 2025, multiple U.S. bases in Syria and Iraq faced coordinated missile and drone attacks.

In February 2026, reports indicated ongoing Iranian strikes against regional assets in the Gulf, impacting international stability." "

Now how has Iranian leadership referred to the US, our citizens and our leadership since 1979.

"Primary Terms and Rhetoric

The Great Satan (Shaytan-e Bozorgh): This is the most famous moniker, first popularized by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini shortly after the revolution. He argued that the U.S. was the primary source of corruption and "evil" in the world, actively working to subvert Islamic values.

The Global Arrogance (Estekbar-e Jahani): A formal term frequently used by current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It frames the U.S. not just as a nation, but as a system of imperialistic "bullying" that seeks to dominate other nations through economic and military power.

The World Devourer: Often used by Khomeini to describe American (and sometimes Soviet) economic imperialism, suggesting that the U.S. consumes the resources of smaller nations to fuel its own power.

A "Wounded Snake" or "Declining Power": In recent years, Khamenei has shifted toward describing the U.S. as a failing empire. He often refers to the U.S. as a "declining power" whose internal divisions and failed foreign policies have made it desperate and dangerous.
KREM

Key Slogans and Context

Death to America (Marg bar Amrika): This ubiquitous slogan is chanted at official state rallies, in parliament, and during Friday prayers.
Official Interpretation: Iranian leaders often clarify that this is not a call for the death of American citizens, but rather "death" to U.S. policies and "arrogance".

The Den of Spies: Following the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iranian leadership officially renamed the compound the "Den of Spies" (Lanh-e Jasusi), a term still used today to characterize U.S. diplomatic missions as fronts for subversion.

Enemy (Doshman): Khamenei frequently uses the abstract term "the enemy" in his speeches to refer to the U.S. and its allies, often without naming them directly, to imply a constant state of siege against the Islamic Republic.
Military Times

Rhetorical Shifts

Pragmatism vs. Ideology: While presidents like Mohammad Khatami (who called for a "Dialogue Among Civilizations") and Hassan Rouhani occasionally used more diplomatic language during negotiations, the Supreme Leader—who holds final authority—has consistently maintained the revolutionary "Great Satan" framework.

Targeting Leaders: Since the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign, rhetoric has often been more personally directed at specific U.S. presidents and their "wickedness," while attempting to distinguish them from the American people."

In addition:

"Iranian leadership frames its opposition to the United States as a religious struggle, using Islamic texts and terminology to cast the U.S. as a moral and spiritual antagonist. This ideological strategy, established by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and continued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, transforms geopolitical conflict into a sacred duty. "

"Educational and Social Reinforcement
State Textbooks: Iranian school curricula often depict human history as a binary conflict between Islamic leaders and "evil enemies," with the U.S. portrayed as the leader of a modern "satanic plan" to destroy true Islam."

So, how would we notice a difference???

Agreed. The "but they'll hate us even more" argument is just as foolish as that phrase sounds.

Did Iran hate us any less during the Biden Administration, when it is known that over a thousand Iranians crossed the southern border illegally and were released into the interior? Now maybe some of those were legit refugees, but we pretty much have structures in place for that with regards to Iran, so it's far more likely that they are at least criminal in nature, if not terrorist sleeper cells. But you don't smuggle terrorists into a nation without the desire and intent to inflict harm— and the Biden administration was already allowing Iran to pursue nuclear armament practically unchecked; why would Iran need to send sleeper cells under those conditions? They knew he'd never touch them, so why the desire to do harm?
Answer: Because they hate.
That's all. The IRGC, the Council of Clerics, the Ayatollahs— all they know, all they do, all they believe in is hate.

What Trump has done is destroy their ability to put that hate into action, at least on a grand scale. We may get young idiots throwing homemade bombs in New York City, but we won't get a nuke going off in Times Square.

We'll have lone wolf Islamic terror attacks. But then, we've had those almost yearly, long before Trump entered office (even the first time). We're a soft target, and hate spreads at the speed of an Internet click. There is no way to make America "hard" in its interior— but we can reduce and even eliminate attacks from outside, especially attacks involving sophisticated devices with the ability to kill thousands or even millions. And we can also but a major damper on the flow of money to terrorist organizations. You have to make money to spread it around… and we just shut down Iran's sources of money. They have no customers among their neighbors. They have few anywhere else. Russia, China, North Korea… to paraphrase Elrond, "their list of allies grows thin." And now the things they had to sell, they don't have, or can't get out of the country. Oil? All blocked up. Weapons? Gone, along with the factories to make them, and the means to export them. The Iranian economy was already collapsing; it's dead now.
The Houthis have no money— it all came from Iran. Hamas has no money— it all came from Iran. Hezbollah has no money— it all came from Iran.
Well, it ain't comin' now.

So the world has an opportunity. We can perhaps finally eradicate this festering puss-filled boil of hatred, or at least so shatter it that lone wolf lunatics are all it has left.

But the real solution will only come if the people of Persia rise up against their oppressors and destroy them.
Such things have happened, and they can happen again.
I think the people have the will to do so. But as Trump says, the way is open, but it may not last long.
I wish I could convey to the people of Iran that the time is now. US troops are NOT coming to free you— and you shouldn't expect that, or call for it. We're doing our fight— you have to do yours.

@Tango01

That's a valid concern, terrorism has often been used as an asymmetric response when a state or movement can't match conventional military power.

But as SB and 35thOVI point out in different ways, Iranian-backed groups have been involved in attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets for decades. In that sense the risk of terrorism isn't something that begins only after airstrikes end — it has been part of the conflict environment for a long time.

The question is whether current operations significantly reduce Iran's ability to organize, finance, and coordinate those proxy activities. If the command networks, logistics, and funding channels are disrupted, then their ability to conduct large or coordinated attacks may decline.

On the other hand, if those structures survive or adapt, then the pattern of proxy attacks may simply continue in another form. That's why it's often difficult to judge the long-term impact of air campaigns while they're still underway.

So your concern is real, but the key issue will probably be whether the infrastructure behind those proxy operations has been degraded enough to limit them over time.

OVI +1

Parz +1

Day 10 and counting … no matter how this conflict ends. Which BTW is not over yet. Rumors of failure at this point is inaccurate and has very little evidence to support it.

Regardless of what most of the media and some members of Congress say. It annoys me that some Dem members of Congress who are Vets, some who even saw action in Iraq or A'stan or even both … IMO are going with their skewed party's line. About anything that has to do with the POTUS and his Admin.
Very disheartening to many other Vets who support this Admin.

And many Vets know what a threat Iran's islamist gov't is. It has much too much blood on their hands including American blood.

No matter what any assessment of this conflict come about. Iran's islamist gov't has been very severely weakened and attrited. Their militant islamist supereme leader and many of its high ranking and in high positions of this medieval religious theocracy. Have been removed … With most of those replacements also being exterminated. And it seems that will happen again.

Most of their weapons[including missiles and drones] ships/boats, aircraft, C3, IRGC, Basji, etc. have been eliminated. In very, very high numbers.

The destruction of their nuclear and missile programs has been severely attrited or just plain destroyed.

Their nuclear weapons plans had to be neutralized. One way or another.

None of these achievements sounds like this campaign is failing. Unless those who have TDS, etc. continue to say otherwise.

If nothing else all the US blood spilled by these religious troglodytes is being avenged. Many times, over …

And at least this time, the US has a leader and Admin. That has taken the initiative to remove this plague from the world. Changing many, many things in that volatile region.

I want to understand that if an uprising or coup against a government is planned, negotiations have taken place with leaders who might have a chance of success. To expect large groups of people demonstrating their opposition in the streets without weapons, planning, leaders to guide them, or any plan for seizing government power is headed straight for utter failure, or worse, a massacre. It's assumed that at the very least there should be military commanders willing to take risks and whose troops are prepared to confront the Revolutionary Guard. It seems none of this was taken into account.

It sounds more like: Let's send a few demons to Paradise, destroy what we can of their military, and put ourselves in God's hands in case someone takes command for a popular uprising…

If this solution were so good… why not try it with the worst of the worst, like Kim Jong-un?

Armand

@Parzival,

I agree with part of what you're saying: ideology and hostility toward the U.S. and Israel have been embedded in the Iranian regime since 1979, and that's unlikely to disappear overnight regardless of who is in power in Washington.

But, not so sure that Iran's ability to act has already been "destroyed." I've been saying that military campaigns often look decisive in their early phases, but the real test tends to be whether the adversary's capacity to regenerate capability has been removed.

For example, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have historically had multiple funding streams and local infrastructure in addition to Iranian support. Iran's oil exports also tend to move through complex networks that can sometimes continue operating even under heavy sanctions or conflict.

So the key question probably isn't whether the regime hates the United States; that part is well established. The true strategic question is whether the strikes have actually removed Iran's long-term ability to finance, produce, and deploy the systems that make that hostility dangerous.

Tango, I agree with much of what you posted. However, North Korea is a very different situation/paradigm. They are nowhere near the threat as Iran is. Un and his regime although having nukes want to live. Stay in power. Un wants to run the horror show that is his "kingdom". And has no predilection to be martyred and go to paradise or whatever. As we see with Iran's theocratic death cult who firmly believe their version of a god. Wants all infidels dead and fanatical islam controls the planet.

Un on the other hand may covet South Korea. And wants it to be part of his kingdom. He and his cronies are living much too well. While 40% of the North Koreans live in squaller, die of starvation, etc., etc. Un has no need to go to paradise. He pretty much is living it now in North Korea. It's good to be king … And he knows it …

Only radical religious lunatics would want to be martyred. With the expectations of going to Paradise.

the key question probably isn't whether the regime hates the United States; that part is well established. The true strategic question is whether the strikes have actually removed Iran's long-term ability to finance, produce, and deploy the systems that make that hostility dangerous.

Let's look at it in the perspective of it is only 10 days and counting in this conflict. There is more to come. And yes many battles start out with a clear victory going to one of the combatants. But also as we know … things can rapidly change. And victory can go to the side that was losing.

However, in this case I and others more learned than I don't see that happening. E.g. just saw GEN(RET) Patraus being interviewed. He is not claiming victory and its over. But he makes it clear. The US and IDF are doing very well and to paraphrase, "The Fat lady ani't singing". At least not yet …

The Iranians overthrew the Shah before. They then, as now, unable to own private firearms.

Now AI believes that this was achieved with mostly peaceful 😌 methods.

So here are the steps, (according to AI).

"The overthrow of the Shah was primarily achieved through mass civil resistance—strikes, demonstrations, and economic paralysis—rather than a traditional armed insurrection.
nonviolent-conflict.org

Because the populace was largely unarmed, the revolution succeeded by making the country ungovernable and eventually breaking the military's will to defend the regime.

1. Economic Paralysis
The most effective weapon against the Shah was not the gun, but the general strike.
Counterfire

Oil Industry: In late 1978, approximately 40,000 oil workers went on strike, cutting off the regime's primary source of revenue and bringing the economy to a standstill.

The Bazaar: Merchants in the traditional markets (bazaars) closed their shops in protest, further choking the economy and providing financial support to the revolutionary movement.
Reddit"

Yes, that would be peaceful. Houston! Step one possible!

AI step 2

"2. "Soldiers, Join the People"
Revolutionary leaders, particularly Ayatollah Khomeini, explicitly instructed protesters not to attack the military with weapons they didn't have, but to win them over instead.
nonviolent-conflict.org

Flowers in Barrels: Protesters famously placed flowers in the gun barrels of soldiers, urging them to desert.

Mass Desertion: Facing millions of peaceful marchers, many of whom were their own relatives, thousands of soldiers and lower-ranking officers eventually refused to fire on the crowds and defected.
link

Houston!! We have our first problem!
The Iranians started to try this before our intervention (remember that was when the MSM and Democratic leadership started chiding Trump for NOT supporting them. 😏). What did the soldiers do? Killed thousands of them. Most of those soldiers mothers , brothers, fathers and sisters did not join the protestors. Why!? Because they are in most cases, hard line fundamentalist believers, like their soldier sons. Also those protesters don't have a central leader.

AI step 3. (We know we are already in trouble before we get here).

3. Disintegration of the Security Apparatus
As the protests grew, the Shah's iron grip on the military began to fail from within.
Counterfire

Air Force Mutiny: On February 9, 1979, air force technicians and cadets mutinied in support of the revolution.

Looting Armories: It was only in the final days of the revolution (February 10–11, 1979) that the public became widely "armed." Revolutionary groups and ordinary citizens stormed police stations and military armories, seizing thousands of weapons like the G3 battle rifle.

Declaration of Neutrality: On February 11, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces declared its "neutrality," effectively ending the monarchy and handing power to the revolutionaries.
Britannica

Ok Houston. We already know the military did not join the protests in step 2 last time. Now maybe with the current attacks some of the NON Republican Guard might be inclined to join the protesters in a second attempt. (A lot of the Air Force and Navy personnel are dead or in Sri Lanka). But I doubt the Iranian Guard will, nor their fundamentalist relatives and friends. So we have a divided populace. Sadly the Fundamentalist are more likely to have the best weapons.
By the way, didn't AI say this was mostly peaceful? Then why weapons. 🤔😏

AI step 4 (things are not looking good so far)

"4. International Pressure

The Shah's response was further constrained by shifting international attitudes.

The Carter administration's human rights policy pressured the Shah to show restraint, which many Iranians interpreted as a sign of weakness, emboldening them to take to the streets in even larger numbers"

Well most countries oppose the current government. But these are fanatical Muslims. Human rights are NOT a concern for them. We know that.

Now the protesters if they arise again, will have the support of air power we can assume. Something their predecessors did not.

But it will require them to fight fanatics of their own religion (and their own making back in 79, NEVER forget that. Their OWN fault). So it comes down to, do they want their freedom bad enough? As it does in every revolution. Are they willing to die for it?

It's not the US responsibility to obtain that freedom for them. It's NOT Israel's. Both countries have given them the opportunity they BEGGED for. But it still comes down to themselves, as it does in every revolution. That horrible word: RESPONSIBILITY.

Iran did before without other countries. Can they do it again?

But I reiterate, NOT our responsibility nor Israel's to do it for them.

Oh one last personal remark: Jimmy Carter… 🤮🤮🤮🤮

Tango, a long answer to your question.

SB, Legion, Parz +1

Again no conformation, but it is popping up in many areas on the web, news lines and radio. I'm starting to give credence to it.

"𝐍𝐢𝐨𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐠 🇮🇷 ✡︎
@NiohBerg
🔴 Unconfirmed reports from inside Iran that are becoming more likely for every day that passes:

• Mojtaba Khamenei is hospitalised at the Sina Hospital ICU.

• He is severely injured in the abdomen and legs, and currently on a ventilator.

• He doesn't know that a war has broken out, or that his family is dead, or that he's become SL. His last conscious moment was the morning of 28/02 (meaning he was hit day 1 and survived if true).

• His surgery was performed by Dr. Zafarghandi along with Dr. Mareshi who have deep regime links.

• The remaining regime leaders are fully aware. Pezeshkian has seen Mojtaba in his hospital bed, and the hospital is under a massive security lockdown.

• In a mix of panic and opportunism to keep control of Iran, the IRGC pushed through Mojtaba's "election" to control the country behind the scenes. Many clerics are furious, and there is a gigantic split.

Take all of this with a grain of salt. But with every hour that goes by with no public appearance by Mojtaba, the more suspicious it seems, and the more I'm inclined to believe at least some of this reporting is accurate."

Iran International;

Notice!! The son says he's wounded, but safe and sound.
BUT Yousef hasn't actually seen him either. 😳🤣

"Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has been injured but is "safe and sound," the son of President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Wednesday, offering one of the few official explanations for his absence from public view since being appointed last week.

Yousef Pezeshkian, who is also a government adviser, wrote on Telegram that he had asked contacts about reports of Khamenei's injury and was told he was safe.

"I heard news that Mr. Mojtaba Khamenei had been injured. I have asked some friends who had connections. They told me that, thank God, he is safe and sound," he said."

One of my Old Army buddies sent me this … Worth a look … not very long … But makes some very good points …

link

This may be something:
-----
BREAKING:

Both regime and non-regime media confirm that drone strikes have begun against street level IRGC and basiji units.

Checkpoints and vehicles are being struck. Suppression forces are being killed in large numbers.

A NEW PHASE HAS BEGUN pic.twitter.com/AlaV9iujS9
— 𝐍𝐢𝐨𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐠 🇮🇷 ✡︎ (@NiohBerg) March 11, 2026
- – - – -

So, the war continues… And it's already routine.
Meanwhile, a review from "History of Legends" of the destroyed Iranian fleet…

link

And regarding the destroyed Iranian girls' school… This school primarily housed the children of Iranian naval officers serving at the nearby Iranian naval base… Two Tomahawk strikes were carried out 40 minutes apart. And this already casts the situation in a different light. Will this affect the Iranians' desire to avenge the deliberate killing of children?

YouTube link

At least the Israelis are being honest.

We attacked Iran with no clear plan for regime change, Israeli security sources say

link

While it is clear that the Israel/US coalition achieved air supremicy, it is still unclear to me how a peace can be won. Imho it would be necessary to destroy the iranian regimes´ ability to interupt international trade in the whole area to achieve something that could be called a victory.
Killing the religious leader might give the terrorist threat a substantial boost, and I expect China to support Iran just to keep the US occupied.
If there is no alternative to the current regime established, there might be the same kind of chaos as in Libya. And this would be a prospect I consider worse than the pre-war status.
So in my opinion the box of pandora was opened.

"Pandora" was called when we grabbed the head of Venezuela. It was called when Israel went into Gaza.

Every action is unique. If I was a betting man, I'd say the U.S. will not be involved more than 6 to 8 total weeks.. this time. I am a "rinse and repeat" believer. Long term with heavy U.S. deaths is not the Presidents style.

I'm not saying how long Israel will keep going. I have no idea what they plan. I doubt any government official really does.

Remember all the things posted on TMP about the Israel/Hamas war? Buying in to the MSM posting and reporting using mainly pro-Hamas/anti Israel sources.

Israel will lose, they will produce more hate and more terrorist, the "genocide" of the innocent Palestinians, Trump can't get a peace, ok, he did, but it will be over quickly, etc etc.

Ok how's that look today? Hamas involved? Things quiet in Gaza? Palestinians eating?

Venezuela?

From an interview with an NPR reporter:

"NPR correspondent Eyder Peralta was amazed during a segment Friday by his recent trip to Venezuela following President Donald Trump's arrest of the country's president Nicolás Maduro.

"It is absolutely surreal because you land at the airport and the signs are in Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese, which tells you just where this country was facing a few months ago," Peralta told host Steve Inskeep. "And then you go out on the streets and people here tell you that they feel like a weight has been lifted."

He continued, "For the first time in a long time, there are street protests. Opposition groups are holding public meetings. I was at the justice department building yesterday, and there was a group of protesters calling for all political prisoners to be released."
….

The NPR reporter went on to say he observed "lots of smiles" during Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's visit, who was brokering a deal with the interim Venezuelan government, eyeing minerals that the U.S. once depended on China for.
…

The State Department announced Thursday the U.S. is reestablishing "diplomatic and consular relations" with the interim Venezuelan government"

No ground troops, no long term. They and we know we can do it all again if necessary.

Long term has not been his style in his 5 years.

I keep saying this, but open your sources to those that are outside of your comfort zones. Otherwise it is pretty much a one sided view of the war. I know, because I go to the websites of CNN, MS-NOW and others. Honestly I'd believe the war was a disaster on day one if I believed them.

But if you are waiting for me to say something negative about the war.. stand by.

Turkey is Israel's next target:

link

link

Israel decided to commit suicide?

Ok criticism.

Why has not the US hit Iranian sourced oil tankers?

According to AI, here are the reasons:

"Key reasons the U.S. has not directly attacked Iranian tankers include:

Risk of Economic Retaliation: Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to all traffic and has indicated it would retaliate by attacking U.S.-allied tankers.

Global Oil Market Impact: Attacking tankers, particularly in the vital Strait of Hormuz, risks creating a supply shock, driving oil prices well over
$
100
$
1
0
0
per barrel.

Military and Strategic Concerns: While the U.S. has destroyed Iranian mine-laying ships, direct attacks on cargo-laden tankers are viewed as highly dangerous. Escorting tankers is considered too risky, as it leaves vessels vulnerable to Iranian missiles.

Focus on Other Pressures: Instead of direct sinking, the U.S. has focused on using Treasury sanctions against tankers and targeted strikes on military infrastructure.
The Wall Street Journal"

Ok
supposedly very little is going through the Straits.

The Iranians have hit multiple tankers already.

They already placed some mines.

Oil prices did go up.

So why not hit them? Or
Why not destroy their loading facilities? Or
Start hitting their oil production facilities (they have hit those of Arab neighbors already)? Or
Mine their harbors, if they lay mines?

Take their only ability to make money away from them, unless they guarantee flow without opposition.

Israel seems to have already taken off their gloves, hitting storage facilities.

I'm sure they would enjoy hitting some Iranian "ghost tankers".

zephyr 👍 sounds good.

If you want me to say something positive about the war:
-Iran threatened the existence of Israel several times
If Israel and the US can get a grip on the plutonium of Iran, that threat might be gone. Would be a big plus.
The same goal should have been achieved by a deal without a war by making sure that Iran can´t get nukes. I thought that was part of the negotiations right before the war.

A war is easy to start, everybody knows that.
But if you do start a war, make sure that it is short and you win. Otherwise your homefront crumbles and my living costs increase.
I still think that the money should have been spent differently. And I still think that this is an Israeli-Iran war with the US as humbugged ally.
And btw I prefer german and british sources. I don´t watch CNN or MSNBC.

Caprum

"Will this affect the Iranians' desire to avenge the deliberate killing of children?"

1) deliberate on our part? Israel's. Proof it was deliberate? By a naval base, with naval children, by a regime that routinely places military assets in or around schools, hospitals, etc. just like Hamas. Accidental? Possibly Hitting a military asset at the school? Possible But intentional to kill children? Not our style.

2) anti regime civilians upset? Why? their own government has killed thousands of their own civilians. They are indiscriminate, men, women, children, gay, straight, any color, any handicap. They are equal in their eyes. ☠️

Besides men, women and children of their own, they are and have done it to the U.S., Israel, europeans, their own neighbors in the past and currently.

Dogtail,

The U.S. has tried negotiations, danegeld and sanctions, since 1979. This President tried it before this attack. They laughed and taunted the negotiators. They have broken every promise.

When I have the time, I will place something from Islamic writings on negotiations with nonbelievers.

You realize, I'm sure, that Germany has been hit by fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in the past and recently, funded by Iran. You are just more "little devils" from their perspective.

I did not name European and British MSM, but they are pretty much equally one sided right now. They like our MSM, hate this president. They rarely headline anything of the successes, mainly negative.

BBC just now, page 1. Wow!! Pretty much what I'm seeing on the threads of TMP. 😳 Iranian school, Iranians turning against the U.S., forever war, high oil costs, Iranians becoming more hardline, Indians suffering

Iran
People gather next a damaged building in the aftermath of a strike, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 12, 2026
'What if we're left with ruins?': Doubts creep in for Iranians who supported war
Teachers, engineers and shopkeepers tell the BBC they fear Iran falling into chaos.

49 mins ago
A large fire burns at an oil depot in Iran at night. Flames and thick plumes of dark smoke tower over the outline of a small building.
Why did US and Israel attack Iran and how long could the war last?
Conflict has spread across the Middle East since the US and Israel launched wide-ranging strikes on Iran on 28 February.

1 hr ago
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at a recent briefing
Questions mount for Hegseth over possible US involvement in strike on Iranian school
Democrats have written to ask the defence secretary whether the US was responsible, but he says the issue is being investigated.

1 hr ago
A BBC Verify graphic showing a man of Iran with attacks marked as dots – the darker the dots, the greater the number of attacks
In maps: Thirteen days of attacks in Iran and the Middle East
Three more civilian ships were attacked in the Gulf overnight, killing at least one person.

2 hrs ago
ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement : 33 sec

Two us cyber command officers in front of giant screens with data and information on them
What role has cyber warfare played in Iran?
Militaries are often cagey about their cyber activities. But the US has hinted at the role it has played.

3 hrs ago
Members of the security forces stand guard on armoured vehicles plastered with portraits of Iran's slain supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L and R) and of his son, Iran's new supreme leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei.
'Fingers on the trigger': Deadly warnings for Iranians being urged to take action
Iran's police chief has warned that his forces would treat anyone taking to the streets "at the enemy's request" as an enemy.

4 hrs ago
A satellite view of the Strait of Hormuz, with a thin stream of dark blue water flowing around a sharp point of arid land jutting into it.
Strait of Hormuz: What happens if Iran shuts global oil corridor?
Iran says it will "set fire" to ships trying to sail through the world's most vital oil transit point.

4 hrs ago
India cooking gas cylinders
'The situation is dire': War on Iran squeezes India's cooking-gas supplies
The shockwaves of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran are being felt in India's kitchens.

6 hrs ago
A man in a black turtleneck jumper stands in his garden. Behind him is a big green plastic tank filled with heating oil.
'Heating oil suppliers are holding us to ransom'
People across the South East say the cost of heating their home soared after war broke out in Iran.

The OP's question is whether the Iranian regime will fall.
I doubt that very much. The regime is fanatical, and they have an iron grip on their people, who they are perfectly willing to make martyrs. Nobody will overthrow them. Nobody.
However, Iran's ability to be a threat will be severely degraded.
Will terrorist groups lose cash support? Yes. But they will be on their own, more independent. "Go out and EARN your 72 virgins! We can't support you forever!"
I was stunned to read how "easy" it is to synthesize the new current fad terrorist explosive, and how undetectable it is. I won't name it, because I don't want Da Gubmint knocking on my door. My Wikipedia search will be a dead giveaway, even if They do monitor TMP.
The last year has shown how Iran doesn't need to control and supply terror. Anyone with a moderate training in chemistry can make just three separate purchases, using different names or people and assemble what's needed. It would be dumb to purchase all 3 at the same place on Dad's Debit card…

So, hopefully (🙄) "state sponsored terrorism" Will be curtailed, but a true jihadi doesn't need it. He'll be more independent. Good or bad? 🤷

intentional to kill children? Not our style.

*cough* Vietnam
*cough* Iraq

link

Collateral damage is always your preferred defence

"When I have the time, I will place something from Islamic writings on negotiations with nonbelievers."
You don´ t need to. An Arabic informed me that it is a sin for a Arabic to cheat another Arabic, but it doesn´t matter if it is an infidel.

Still, if you wanna do something, do it right or don´t do it at all. In my view, the costs of this war already exceed the benefits. Maybe not for Israel, but for the US and for Europe.

"Cough" protestants or "cough" Catholics
Depending on your flavor of the day, Gob?

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. 😏

Dogtail what are the costs, that the U.S. and Israel have not been paying from Iran since 1979?

A weak spot with this President. He believes every leader will be driven by economics.

That is not the case with Fundamentalist Islam. As long as they control a country, there is only temporary peace periods while they believe they have been "temporarily" subjected.

Trump needs to study fundamentalist Islam. Also their history since 600.
…
"Islam employs 9 types of deceptions to destroy non-Muslims: Taqiya, Hiyal, Adab al jadal, dawah, kitman, tafsir, darura, and muruna. According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as 'taqiyya', based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. The sole function of the "peace-treaty" (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive"
….
"Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: "Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.) Al-Tabari's (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them… Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them." Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil, may protect himself through outward show." None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception."
….
"Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the "best deceiver" or "schemer." (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh. according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict." Islam's dichotomised worldview pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter."
We can assume many of the "refugees" and "immigrants" adhere to these beliefs, as we have already seen the examples in many countries. (And they are NOT the majority yet)."

A quote from a study on war, deception and peace with fundamentalist Muslims I read:

"In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace — that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals — are times of feigned peace and pretence, in a word, taqiyya."

OVI +1

SBm +1

Parz +1

dogtail + 1/2 [But you're trying 😏]

Collateral damage is always your preferred defence

As well the IRA's and many others. BUT unlike terrorists that is not SOP, we don't target non-combatants. No Iranian military kin were targeted. SOP would have been to target the enemy personnel, not their kids. Seem we are doing a lot of that …

However, anyone who studies history and not biased knows CD happens. As much as you try to mitigate it. Even Blue on Blue happens. Made infamous in WWII, etc. The Kuwaiti's shot down 3 US F-15s recently. With IIRC US made Patriot ADA.

Even if you designate air routes, coordinate flights, etc. Sometimes someone does not get the word systems fail, etc.. And Blue of Blue occurs.

Of course some here will use this type of CD event to vilify the US. As it is their predilection with all their disdain for its leadership, the nation, etc., etc.

I'd think with the surgical accuracy that the US and IDF have demonstrated. Any CD would be accidently, systems failure, etc.

So 'n stop bashing the US and IDF militaries. From fighting their terrorist enemies. Who have no regard for non-combatant lives. Iran is targeting civilian locations as is Russia in Ukraine.

If there was No concern about CD. Many places would look like the dark side of the moon. Actually, in some cases certain locations already do. War is never very clean; little is black and white but a lot of grays. Sadly, we all know that is the reality.

The way to stop CD … don't go to war and/or use your population as "meat shields" …

Iran International:

"No appearance, no voice: Iran's new leader issues first message in writing

Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued his first message on Thursday, calling for continued military resistance and saying the Strait of Hormuz should remain a tool of pressure, even as questions persist about his health and whereabouts.

The message was not delivered in person. Instead, it was read aloud by a state television anchor while a still photograph of Khamenei was displayed on screen, meaning that nearly two weeks after the conflict began, no video or audio recording of the new leader himself has been released… "

Here is some of the fake news related to the Iran "war" on our media daily:

Subject: Thomas Hern on X: "CNN's Paul Begala falsely claims Pete Hegseth purchased ribeye steaks and lobster tails for himself, not the troops. Scott Jennings, "Internet do something." Here are the receipts: t.co/VZ6j4j2sn2 / X


link

Now this was another instance of the Fake Stream media launching false attacks at the head of the department of war, (which it seems many seem to buy. 🙄). Was not just CNN.

Real reasons:

"In March 2026, reports emerged that the U.S. Department of Defense (historically referred to as the Department of War) spent approximately $22 USD million on high-end food items, including $15.1 USD million on ribeye steaks and $6.9 USD million on lobster tails.
FOX 11 Los Angeles

The "real" reason for these purchases is attributed to two primary factors:

1. "Use-It-or-Lose-It" Budgeting
The surge in high-end food purchases was largely driven by federal, end-of-fiscal-year spending. Agencies, operating under a "use-it-or-lose-it" policy, often rush to spend remaining budget funds by September 30 to prevent future cuts. This resulted in significant September spending under Secretary Pete Hegseth, with the steak and lobster, specifically, serving as a large-scale, contracted provision for dining facilities, bases, and ships.
Yahoo

2. Morale and Cultural Traditions
Beyond fiscal logistics, "Surf and Turf" meals serve important, symbolic roles in military culture:

Morale Boosting: These luxury meals function as a psychological lift during demanding, high-stakes, or lengthy operational periods.
Special Occasions: They are routinely served for milestones, such as the U.S. Army's 250th birthday.

The "Last Supper" Legend: In military tradition, these meals can sometimes signal imminent deployment or, as with recent, widely-circulated videos that fueled speculation about strikes against Iran, a significant, potentially dangerous, new phase of operations."

"Yes, ABC officially moved The View from its entertainment division to the ABC News division in 2014" 😳

"On the March 10, 2026, episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg claimed that U.S. military actions in Iran were being used as a distraction to take public attention away from the Jeffrey Epstein files and the ongoing disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC Today show host Savannah Guthrie."

Subject: ‘The View' co-host Whoopi Goldberg… – Sky News Australia | Facebook


link

There are a number of concerning issues with the conflict.

Firstly the stock of advanced weaponry is decreasing significantly with only minimal capability of replacing it in the short term. Also, to date, there doesn't seem a significant drop off in drone and missile attacks from Iran. At some point there is going to be a resolution to this with either the Iran weapons running out or the US defensive weapons running out. If it is the later, then casualties will certainly trend upwards. I don't think there is conclusive evidence supporting which side is going to run out first.
With the reported redeployment of THAAD and Patriot units from the Korean Peninsula, there must be at least some concern about stock levels in the region.
By moving units out of Korea, there is at least some risk of increased exposure there.
With the lower stock levels of missiles, it will affect the ability of the US to respond to other global situations. I don't feel comfortable with the ability to respond to possible events in Taiwan or Korea. Indeed the European nations may need to respond themselves to any Russian aggression short of the nuclear umbrella. I am not sure that the US would be able to provide meaningful support to Europe especially if any type of situation developed in the Asia Pacific region. European nations increasing responsibility for self protection is increasingly important. Indeed buying European weaponry is going to be more important as US supply chains are going to be under extreme pressure.

The other item of concern is the economic destruction of Iran. If Iran loses power plants, water plants and oil production export facilities, it effectively looses its economy. Even with a change in leadership which may or may not happen, the country would not be in a position to recover. Such a situation invites actors such as ISIS as we have seen in many other cases. Also, countries in such a situation tend to turn to even harder line leaders. It currently seems like there is not an endgame plan other than just stopping.

I expect China to support Iran just to keep the US occupied. If there is no alternative to the current regime established, there might be the same kind of chaos as in Libya. And this would be a prospect I consider worse than the pre-war status. So in my opinion the box of pandora was open

This war was ALWAYS going to happen -- but now it's happening on the US' terms, not China's terms. It's no secret that China's plans for attacking Taiwan include provoking diversionary wars to split US resources and attention.

In preparation for a war with Taiwan, Chinese strategists over the years (and China watchers who revealed these strategies) have mused about thier own full spectrum war with the US, each with an escalation risk base on the instrusiveness of the measure. Oh, and a matter of "when" not "if," and they assume China will initiate the war at a place and time of it's own choosing.

1. Economic warfare: China would pump and dump stocks and treasury notes to try and crash the Stock Market.

2. Political warfare: China would "activate" its influence among Left Wing groups and sympathetic politicians to oppose US actions and cause disruptive street protests.

3. Infrastructure warfare: At a minimum China would slam the US and West with massive cyberattacks designed to bring down communications and transportation systems, logistics hubs (ports -- where too many stupid cities have allowd Chinese made cranes to be installed; ZPMC cranes are dominant at major U.S. ports and we know they have backdoors installed with cellular and wireless modems built in), as well as critical systems like power plants. Active measures could include physical sabotage, and include scuttling Chinese flagged ships in the Panama Canal. The huge Chinese "Maritime Militia" comprised of its massive fishing fleets could be activated to swarm and block ports and naval units at sea, harassing them in prelude to possible naval conflict and even provoke incidents to attrit US munitions an ships and provide political cover for the CCP – "See the US Navy attack innocent fishermen!" They also have an unknown number of freighter with containerized weapons systems at sea as well.

4. Interior strikes on US: Taking a page from Ukraine's bookm China has been planning to conduct attacks on US strategic air bases and other sensitive facilites and targets.

5. Proxy Wars: China would have their client states launch attacks on the US and allies to distract and tie down resources. Venezuela, Iran (and its own proxies) and North Korea would all be called on to launch military attacks on neighboring countries to tie down US assets.

6. Deep strikes on US bases in the Indo-Pacific: If Chine decides it's going "all in" on Taiwan its opening moves would also include ballistic missile attacks on Guam and other US bases, and other strikes could be carried out by weaponized cargo ships using containterized missile systems. Once PLA criticism of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor I recall reading said Japan did not go far enough and their fleet should have conducted airstrikes on US ports on the West Coast. Chinese "Q" ships could launch missile strikes on the US navy bases in San Diego, Kitsap WA (home of our Pacific boomer fleet), etc.

So now the US has removed potentially two of these proxy allies.

Iran international:

"23 minutes ago
EXCLUSIVE
Two Iranian diplomats apply for asylum in Denmark, Australia

Two Iranian diplomats apply for asylum in Denmark, Australia
Alireza Sohbati, a diplomat at the Iranian embassy in Copenhagen, and Mohammad Pournajaf, a diplomat at the Iranian embassy in Canberra, have submitted asylum requests.

Pournajaf had previously served as the chargé d'affaires of the Islamic Republic's embassy in Australia.

In recent months, amid escalating political and social developments linked to the Iranian national uprising, other cases of Islamic Republic diplomats abandoning their posts and seeking asylum have also been reported.

Iran International had previously reported that Alireza Jeyrani Hakamabad, a senior diplomat at the Iranian mission to the UN Office in Geneva, had left his workplace and applied for asylum in Switzerland.

Similarly, Gholamreza Derikvand, the chargé d'affaires of the Islamic Republic's embassy in Austria, applied for asylum in Switzerland after leaving his post.

US President Donald Trump recently called on Islamic Republic diplomats around the world to distance themselves from the government and apply for asylum."

Martyn

Yes decreasing stockpiles are a concern. Was a concern in Afghanistan and definitely a concern while suppling the Ukraine (although only a few of us brought that up and we were attacked vehemently on TMP).

We have to replace them at today's cost.

But in my opinion Iran is worth it, based on their decades of attacks on the U.S.

South Korea. Not enough taken out to really change things. Besides it is past time for S Korea to pick up even more of the cost in money and men for their defense.

"South Korea has significantly increased its defense spending, with the 2026 budget projected to be approximately $44.8 USD billion to $47.6 USD billion (roughly 65.8 trillion won), reflecting a 7.5% to 8.2% rise to counter North Korean threats. This amount represents roughly 2.6%–3.5% of their GDP, with major investments in advanced weapons and "3-axis" deterrence systems."

Not even the 5% Europe has said they would spend. 🙄

Taiwan I don't want to get into on Iran war talks. Except…

"Taiwan's defense spending for the 2026 fiscal year is budgeted at 3.32% of its GDP, according to Focus Taiwan and Bloomberg. This figure represents a significant increase from previous years and is the first time Taiwan's defense budget has exceeded 3% of its GDP since 2009"

Start defending yourselves.

Inca77

So it may be fair to say that significant tactical successes have already occrred, while the strategic outcome will probably only become clear over the longer term.

Yes again your posts are basically somethings I can agree with.

However, we know as an evolving tactical situation develops, orders and priorities change. Opportunities present themselves and are taken advantage of. I know on FTXs, etc. when I was in the Army. Missions, objectives, etc. would change sometimes drastically. Even as a Plt Ldr and Co. Cdr I had to take the initiative and alter the plans. That is expected and somewhat what you got paid for.

I now the same happens at all levels from Theater, Army, Corps, Div. on down. It does not show confusion in most situations, it demonstrates adapting to developing events.

Now many here, many in Congress and of course the media question some of the decisions that the POTUS, etc. seem to change almost daily. As I have said and recently a GEN Ret interviewed said again. The POTUS saying one thing and doing something else a day later. Is like part of deception plan. As I have said, and that plan seems to be working.

As opposed to the last admin. That POTUS's effective ranger had expired long ago. And his capabilities continued to attenuate. That admin was populated with those that were really not capable of making good sound operational or strategic decisions. I'm not the only one to see this. Their foot dragging in Ukraine. Giving billions of $ to Iran, as Obama did. Only made things worse much worse.

As far as planning goes, we really don't see what is going on behind the curtain. And much of it is very classified, we may never know. The Congress, media, etc., etc, can second guess all they want. But again OPSEC is a priority. And the situation is developing rapidly.

This air/sea campaign has been one of the biggest and most effective in history. It has to be clear as in many ops. Attacks are incremental. Priority targets change as the battle continues.

E.g. Taking out ADA and offensive missiles assets seem to have been the first priority. Along with C3.

With all air defenses eliminated including their air force. Most on the ground. That frees up the air over battle area/country. Larger aircraft, e.g. the B-52, B1 and B2 can fly without any threats.

Using their massive ordinance loads including cruise type missiles. To destroy enemy supply and manufacturing locations. Including their missile/TEL and drone locations and resupply activities.

Iran's navy is pretty much 95%+ gone. The only threat is small boats which they have over 100 or more. Those can be used to mine the Hormuz. Or as suicide waterborne IEDS. Plus they have Anti-ship missiles along their coast. That can be a threat to shipping. As well as drones, which IIRC has hit about 3-4 ships. Many of those are being taken out and will be.

The attrition of their ground forces now that their missile, drone and naval assets have been massive. With more to do. However, more air, naval and even FA units can start attriting the IRGC, Basji, etc. ground units. And as always C3.

This has been described by GENs. etc. as the last days of the Riech in WWII. Leadership is attrited, units are without orders and supplies. Iran's units are acting without guidance. Doing little using what munitions and ordinance they have. Trying to kill the infidels.

Some are deserting, trying to escape. Some are going to fight to the death and believe their god with save them. Or get a place in paradise(?). Sound like the IJFs in late '44 and '45 … Dying for their emperor …

However, for the popular uprising to have a chance. The IRGC, Basji and most of their religious leaders have to be removed. With the extremist prejudice.

Those Free Persian forces will need weapons, etc. and some guidance for either IDF Spec Ops, CIA, US Spec ops. Those will be or are the boots on the ground. The IDF is perfect for this being there on the ground for a very long time. Working the Persians as they have been. This is their backyard so to speak. Kurdish local elements can be used to reclaim their lands, get revenge on the IRGC, Basji, etc. And provide more forces Iran must deal with.

With total air superiority. Supply drops can go in with few if any enemy threats. As well as IDF/US air assets can support these attacks.

All that being said, there still is a lot of work to do. And much more attrition of all of Iran's assets must continue. Before these ground ops can go in an become successful.

This islamists regime cannot survive to be a threat to the Jews, the US, the Arabs in the region. And as importantly to the Persians to be free from this ilsamist cancer. The world over all will be a better place.

@SBminisguy
I do believe that we are in the middle of a long time war between the USA and China, but it is a war on economic, legal and information level. China is not so stupid to take on the US forces in a direct confrontation. As you said (IIRC), the USA overextended, so in my view China is just waiting for
-the USA to lose its tight grip on world economics, especially by reducing the importance of the $
-USA to lose its political influence on the western allies
-USA to lose its dominance in IT

You cannot deny that the relations between the EU/Uk and the USA are in the worst state since the existance of the EU.
Imho the US administration lost all tarif wars with China, and now has to repay billions because most of them were illegal anyway. So the US is in a economic decline, and Trumps answers are the wrong ones.
I hope that the US can regain their influence in the world, but hopefully not by bullying but by cooperation with sovereign countries around the world. But I don´t think MAGA has the right mindset to even try. The return to the Monroe doctrin is a joke in todays world.

Every president and their views on Iran acquiring nukes via development programs. Everything tried… except force.

Obviously all previous were failures.

Just reinforces my belief that Jimmy was completely out of touch with reality and was mainly responsible for the Iran of today. 🤬

"Every U.S. President since the 1979 Islamic Revolution has maintained a policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, though approaches have varied significantly between diplomacy, "maximum pressure" sanctions, and threats of military action.
Facebook

Here is the breakdown of views on Iran having nuclear weapons, by president:

Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)
Context: The nuclear program was in its infancy during the revolution and subsequent hostage crisis.
Views: In later years, Carter argued against attacking Iran, stating that while sanctions were intended to pressure them, "The decision about whether or not to become a nuclear power will be made by Iranians". He believed that "if they [Iran] got one nuclear weapon, Israel has… 300 or more," and that constant threats of attack were counterproductive. He supported the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, calling it a "major step in the right direction".
CBS News
CBS News

Ronald Reagan (1981–1989)
Context: The Iran-Iraq War and the Iran-Contra Affair.
Views: Reagan aimed to restrict Iran's capabilities while, paradoxically, engaging in secret arms-for-hostages deals in an effort to reach moderate factions. His administration sought to stop state-sponsored terrorism and curb Iranian influence in the region. Reagan's general philosophy was a desire for a world free of nuclear weapons, which applied to preventing proliferation in the Middle East.
Miller Center
Miller Center

George H.W. Bush (1989–1993)
Context: Post-Iran-Iraq War.
Views: Bush's administration sought to contain Iran and was deeply skeptical of the regime. Policy focused on restricting technological aid to Iran's suspected nuclear efforts, following the general consensus that a nuclear-armed Iran was a direct threat to regional stability.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001)
Context: Implementation of "dual containment" of Iraq and Iran.
Views: Clinton was the first president to formalize the hardline policy that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, imposing comprehensive oil and trade embargoes in 1995. He believed that Iranian attempts to develop nuclear technology were a critical threat to global stability.
The American Prospect
The American Prospect

George W. Bush (2001–2009)
Context: Post-9/11, "Axis of Evil," and the Iraq War.
Views: Declared Iran part of the "Axis of Evil," accusing them of building weapons of mass destruction. He maintained that the U.S. "should never allow Iran to threaten the world with a nuclear bomb". Although intelligence in 2007 suggested Iran had halted its active weapons program in 2003, Bush insisted that as long as they had the knowledge and intent, they remained dangerous, keeping "all options on the table," including military action.
The Guardian
The Guardian

Barack Obama (2009–2017)
Context: Severe international sanctions leading to negotiation.
Views: Adopted the mantra that an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability is "unacceptable," but focused on diplomatic, economic, and covert measures rather than direct military engagement. This culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which aimed to cap Iran's enrichment capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief.
Brookings
Brookings

Donald Trump (2017–2021 & 2025–Present)
Context: Withdrawal from the JCPOA and "Maximum Pressure."
Views: Argued the JCPOA was "one of the worst deals ever made" and failed to deter Iran's enrichment aims. He reimposed heavy sanctions ("maximum pressure") and ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites in 2025, maintaining that Iran must be stopped from acquiring a bomb. He has consistently argued that Iran was "very close to having one" and that his actions prevented it.
Axios
Axios

Joe Biden (2021–2025)
Context: Attempting to revive the nuclear deal.
Views: Believed that the withdrawal from the JCPOA allowed Iran to accelerate its nuclear program closer to a weapon. His administration favored a "diplomacy first" approach to rejoin the nuclear deal and put the program back in a "box," although negotiations remained deadlocked throughout his term.
AP News
AP News"

Iran had no nukes, so why did the former presidents failed?

@dogtail

I actually agree with your starting point — the U.S. and China are already in a kind of long-term conflict, just not a shooting war. It's mostly economic, technological, and geopolitical. Where I think your take goes off track is assuming China is just sitting back waiting for the U.S. to collapse.

A lot of what you're describing is exactly what the current U.S. strategy is trying to prevent. The U.S. has been pushing supply chains out of China in key areas like semiconductors, critical minerals, and advanced tech. You're seeing deals with India, Australia, Indonesia, and others specifically to build alternatives to China's economic dominance. That's not decline — that's restructuring the system.

The idea that the U.S. is losing its allies also doesn't quite match what's happening. NATO countries just agreed to major increases in defense spending, something Washington has been asking for for decades. India has moved much closer to the U.S. strategically. In the Indo-Pacific, partnerships like AUKUS are expanding, and the US us making serious inroads in Africa pushing back on China's "Belt & Road" influence. That's not what collapsing alliances or retreat look like.

On tariffs, people often think the goal was simply to "win" a trade war with China. That was never really the point. The goal was to slow China's tech rise and push companies to move supply chains elsewhere. If you look at semiconductors, tech investment restrictions, and manufacturing shifts, that decoupling is already happening. More generally, the tariffs have been a tool to reset imbalanced trade deals and security relationships.

And on the Monroe Doctrine point — every major power focuses on its neighborhood. China does it in the South China Sea. Russia does it in Eastern Europe. The U.S. paying more attention to the Western Hemisphere isn't some bizarre throwback; it's pretty normal geopolitics.

None of this means the U.S. strategy is perfect, and there's definitely friction with Europe at times. But disagreements over tariffs or defense spending aren't the same thing as alliances collapsing. What we're really seeing is the U.S. trying to rebalance after decades of post–Cold War overreach — not quietly fading away while China waits.