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

Interesting information on the Straits inside about both sides efforts in the straits.

"But most of the big VLCC tankers are still on pause because Lloyd's of London and other insurers jacked up oil cargo insurance rates. They fear a repeat of the 1980s tanker war, when Iran's navy attacked 168 ships. One was the oil and bulk ore carrier Norman Atlantic, which was set ablaze after attacks by Iranian gunboats on Dec. 6, 1987. The burning hulk was towed out of the shipping lane and sunk off Oman.

With more than 100 Iranian ships destroyed so far in Operation Epic Fury, there is practically no way Iran can sustain naval attacks. In fact, no ship has been targeted since March 12."

Subject: REBECCA GRANT: Five ways Trump plans to tame Hormuz chaos — and China won't like it


link

@SBminisguy
I am not so sure if decision making even in high ranking politic is without hurt feelings, especially if I look at DJT. When Helmut Kohl convinced Gorbatchov that Germany can unit and join NATO it will pose no thread to the sovjet union/Russia, that was quite important. When Obama said that Russia is only a local power, Putin noticed, and his later engagement in Syria was a highly succesful engagement with little means.

But normally relations between countries are manifested in contracts. International law used to be important, or at least a common ground. Btw even I get it why Putin sees western engagement in former yugoslavia and Libya highly critical. Trump is not honouring international law or contracts.
Many NATO members underfunded their military because there was no threat. When that changed because of the annexation of crimea, many NATO members started to increase their military spending as lined out in an agreement. So if you and Trump repeat again and again and again that NATO members did not spend enough I agree. But that does mean that those NATO members did not fullfill their obligations.

NATO members spend a lot of money and blood in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they don´t want to be engaged in this war I am okay with that.

SB good job…

The conduct of the military operations is not really in question. The execution is first rate as fully expected. And nobody wants Iran to have nukes. For some reason here questions about the perceived lack of clarity about specific expected outcomes keep leading to replies that Trump haters are blinded by Trump hating. Underneath this defense I think there is a certain uneasiness about whether Trump is best suited to manage the big picture concerns. He loves the big stick, does not walk softly. Too many people are not inspired.

I don't think his style is a good fit for managing and balancing alliances, dealing with unexpected outcomes, and inspiring public support around focused messaging. It does not matter whether it's running a business or a nation, these things are part of getting to successful outcomes. We get the official soundbites, the scoreboard of bad guy leaders killed. But the world and even a majority of Americans aren't comfortable with the war.

Every great American leader has had the ability to hold disparate parts of the country together, restore unity, sometimes against great odds, and to engage with and inspire global allies, even when disagreements occur. Leadership is about unifying different, sometimes opposing elements to focus on broader outcomes, despite obstacles. It is the hardest part of the job, nobody has a 100% success rate. But it is a core American value, IMO.

I am not going for political points here, and I do not consider this post a political rant.

+1 Tortorella

what I really dislike about the threads here at modern warfare is the "we against them" mind set of the Trump hailers. Internal US politics seems to have no grey zones, and that spills over to the threads here. I consider this forum a place to get information and more knowledge about different perspectives. It sometimes reminds me of a bubble where people fight for supremacy in the war of information.

Showing Iran what could be next if the U.S. and Israel decide to expand?

To date, only leadership related and military related targeting. Next expand to their only viable export? (I ignore terrorism as their other).

I think Kharg was in response to the Straits.

"Iran shuts several South Pars gas phases after strike

Several phases of Iran's South Pars gas field were struck in US-Israeli attack, a local official said on Wednesday, according to Fars news agency.

The governor of Asaluyeh said some facilities were taken out of operation to stop the fire from spreading.

He said the situation was under control and firefighting teams were working to contain the blaze, while a crisis unit had been set up to coordinate the response.

No casualties have been reported so far, he added."

"Trump is not honoring international law…"

What about Iran?
They are exempt?
Actually have been held unaccountable to international law since 79. Well except for the very very rare occasions the U.S. and Israel have.

Who enforces international law?
If not the U.S., who does enforce whatever it is?

Has Pakistan, Russia, Nigerian Muslims recently broken international law? Or is it just when the U.S. does something, others demand the U.S. adhere to whatever this nebulous "international law" is?

Or is it only brought up when the person running a country, happens to be someone you intensely and blindly dislike?

Wait!! You told me Israel was running this show??

You know, those evil Jews.

"A senior Israeli official said the Israeli Air Force struck Iran's largest natural gas processing facility in the southwest of the country, in coordination with and with approval from the United States, Axios reporter Barak Ravid said on Wednesday.

The strike targeted a key energy site, the official said.

Earlier, Iranian state media said parts of the South Pars gas field and facilities in Asaluyeh were hit in what it described as a US-Israeli attack."

@35thOVI
"What about Iran?"
Do you know what "Whataboutism" describes?

"You know, those evil Jews."

Do you imply antisemitism on my side?

You already brought my deceased mother into the discussion, you carpetbomb this thread with religious fury. I don´t even read most of your copy & paste "information", so I will not answer to any of your postings anymore.

The US-Israeli attack on the the gas field is going to make Iran replicate on all the petrochemical facilities of the region. Vietnam is already rationing petrol, the economical effect are going to be massive and that alone will make sure that the US are left with no allies (except Israel) in the Asian region.

Some people think here that the economical war that Trump has been waging again Western economies has no effect. But even here in Switzerland a moderate country that was heavily targeted by the Trump economical war, with politician insulted multiple times by Trump, majority of people are no more putting the US in the "friend" category.

Once people start throwing out allegations of antisemitism (where none exists) as a way of stifling discussion, then there is no merit in continuing discussion.

Lilian—a mercenary is someone who serves for money. Exclusively for money. Those who served in the Waffen-SS served for an idea. For the idea of ​​National Socialism and racial inequality.
And Pétain certainly did not consider them mercenaries:
link

it is very well known that Pétain is not Franco with the Division Azul and faced here the fait accompli insulting his sovereignty, he was not at all associated with the creation of such mercenary unit raised by german authorities in northern occupied zone, he had no words to say about that, he even prohibited the recruitment of French Army cadres in such poor small 3-battalions regiment who collapsed in four days once in the russian front, by the way joined by a number of white russians exiled in Paris and a larger number of others came from the pay as their own chiefs recognized and deplored, the french-russian relationships were even better with him than previous Democratic IIIrd Republic at the brink to an open war against communist Russia allied to Nazi Germany in 1939-1940, celebrated as "the heroic ally" in the invasion of Poland in Moscou, a French expeditionary corps was gathered and a bomber squadron sent for Finland, stopped in England only by the finnish-soviet armistice of march 1940, only a Military Artillery Training mission and a medical mission reached Finland at that time, precursor of a larger French Expeditionary Alpine mountain Brigade, the British planned the same but were much more reluctant to organize their own expeditionary corps, well one year after in april 1941 after the help to his german ally to sunk British ships thanks to the german-russian naval bases and to invade Poland and France Benelux Scandinavia, Stalin didn't cease to reaffirm that he remains a loyal supporter of the Axis and an enemy of England and America

I suggest that everyone in this thread should take a Timeout and brush up on Logical Fallacies.
Here's a good start, but it's incomplete.
link

This will give you something new to rant about. Of course it only applies to someone who doesn't agree with you 100%! Not you, by Jove!

1) what is the religion of Israel? Jewish by 75%
2) top leadership in Israel? Jewish
3) almost to a man, everyone opposing this war on TMP had said the Israelis are calling the shots. Again what are the Israelis?

Hence "Evil Jews"

But not just this thread. Almost all threads related to this war on TMP. Going back further, the threads on the war in Palestine. If they still exist, go read them.

But Dogtail, are you trying to imply antisemitism does not exist on the other side? Since you brought it up. Would you state that there is none.

What about all the protesters in our streets and around campuses who expressed it and even attacked Jews here and in Europe? Some even from countries who say the hate Jews.

So to say it is not part of the other side, is sadly naive.

Inca 77 … yes again I believe we see somethings similarly …

I would like to add that your making a real point, and your experience is vital but youre also subtly shifting the argument again.

Well I don't think so … but the bottom line IMO and others is to stop Iran from getting deployable nukes …

The distinction I'm constantly drawing is between having operational plans and having a clearly defined strategic end state.

Again, what says there is not ? Again we don't know what goes on in classified settings. As well as saying one thing in the open media for all to hear. Verses doing something else you don't say is the basis of deception planning … OPSEC.

An OPLAN can outline how to apply force under different scenarios, but it doesn't by itself resolve the question of what outcome those operations are intended to produce, or how that outcome is achieved.
That's where the uncertainty comes in.

Generally. an OPLAN or OPPLANS will have 1-4 Courses of Actions. And those can change based on how the battlefield develops, evolves, morphs, etc. We training to be proactive but know we have to be reactive as a situation rapidly changes. We can plan for the future. But even with intel assets. We may have to react. But I'm sure you know this as some others here do or should as well. We all are students of history, etc.

However, I don't know how much more information that the US can give out. Without out letting the cat out of the bag. If what the US say or does may turn out to be a surprise or confusing to the media, the viewers and does the same to the enemy. Then the training, planning, decisions, etc. is paying off. But again, I have the advantage of having the training and experience to see things a little deeper, less confusing. As at least at Plt, Co, Bn and Bde levels training give me insights that some don't …

When a COL and\or 1+ Star GEN comes up to a Senior CPT and starts asking questions, etc. It is prudent to know what you are talking about, doing, etc. At least that has been my experience … Usually it turned out … good …

Martyn,

Same question I asked Dogtail.

"Once people start throwing out allegations of antisemitism (where none exists) as a way of stifling discussion, then there is no merit in continuing discussion."

Is that NOT the current Modus Operandi of the left when in any discussion?

To stop it, call the other person: a racist! A fascist! A Homophobe! A Putin Puppet!

I accused no individual of anti semitism. I'm sure they would say being anti Israel does not make a person an anti semite.

Now again.

What were the US initial objectives of this war? (Not Israel's. I don't read theirs, nor care).

All "deterrent" goals only.

"These are the U.S. currently stated goals. (Not those of the MSM or Presidential opponents).

Destroying Iran's Ballistic Missile Capabilities: This includes neutralizing offensive missiles and razing the country's missile production infrastructure to the ground.

Annihilating the Iranian Navy: The mission seeks to eliminate the IRGC navy to prevent the disruption of global shipping and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.

Preventing Nuclear Weaponization: Ensuring that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon by targeting remaining enrichment facilities and weaponization research sites.
PBS
"

Regime change was brought in later, but only to the point that the US wanted to be involved in that leadership change.

Nothing stated that the U.S. would force that change militarily. (That was implied by others outside the administration).

I say only of regime change. The U.S. and Israel have already proven they can force a change. Simply by at will, killing whoever does not please them.

So by that meter, accomplished or can be accomplished at will.

Iran's Navy. ☠️
Iran's missiles, drones and production of each? definitely degraded.
Iran's nuclear capabilities? Again at worst, set back again.

I would give tactical successes at minimum 75%

All these we can achieve at will again, on a whim and Iran cannot stop it, nor prevent their leadership prove dying.

So rinse and repeat… as needed.
Again, DETERRENCE.

The only open issue outside of the objectives above is the Strait. That may be ongoing.

AI on objectives as of the 16th.

"As of March 16, 2026, the ongoing military campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, has achieved several significant military objectives in its first two weeks, primarily focusing on "decapitation and defanging" the Iranian regime. 

The Hill
 

Key Military Achievements
* Neutralizing the Iranian Navy: The U.S. and its allies have effectively rendered the Iranian Navy defunct, with over 50–90 naval vessels confirmed destroyed or resting on the sea floor.

* Degrading Missile and UAV Capabilities: Strikes have achieved a 90% reduction in ballistic missile launches and a 95% reduction in drone attacks. Specifically, over 70% of Iran's ballistic missile launchers have been rendered inoperable.

* Leadership Decapitation: Initial operations targeted and successfully eliminated high-value political and military leaders, including reports of the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and over 40 other officials.

* Air Superiority: The U.S. and Israel currently enjoy air superiority over large swaths of Iranian territory, allowing for persistent strikes on defense arrays, including surface-to-air missiles and radar systems.

* Destruction of Infrastructure: Major regime facilities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) headquarters, the parliament building, and several nuclear development sites, have been heavily damaged or destroyed. 
*
* Atlantic Council
"

Of course all have increased since then.

I have more but keeping this shorter.

I do consider critic of a country as critic of the government, to be more precise the government during the time frame. So if I criticise US politics in 1917 I do not consider myself anti american but critical of Mr Wilson.
If I say the US was humbugged into the war by Israel, I don´t consider myself an anti-israel lefty.

@35th OVI: I still believe that you imply that critic of Israel is antisemite per se. But that is simply not true.

of course antisemitsm exist in all of the political spectrum. But I am not an antisemnite. Period.

Why did we get to this point?

Iran and nukes since 1979.

Engagement Across U.S. Presidents
The program has spanned 13 U.S. presidential administrations (as of March 2026):

1. Jimmy Carter: Initially continued negotiations until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, after which the U.S. halted nuclear support and fuel supplies.

2. Ronald Reagan: Focused on containment as Iran began to rebuild its program covertly during the Iran-Iraq War.

3. George H.W. Bush: Monitored Iran's renewed nuclear ambitions as it sought assistance from Russia and China.

4. Bill Clinton: Signed the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 to sanction entities aiding Iran's WMD programs.

5. George W. Bush: Confronted the public revelation of secret sites at Natanz and Arak (2002) and focused on international sanctions and the "possible military dimensions" of the program.

6. Barack Obama: Revealed the secret Fordow site in 2009 and negotiated the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to limit Iran's enrichment.

7. Donald Trump (First Term): Withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in 2018 and reimposed "maximum pressure" sanctions.

8. Joe Biden: Attempted to revive the JCPOA without success; overseen Iran's escalation to 60% enrichment.

AI tried to insinuate that
JCPOA was at least successful for less than 12 months. As did both Obama and whoever ran the country under Biden.

That unfortunately was not true. There was what Iran "let" the world see and what Iran hid and refused to let verifiers see.

"Critics, including the Trump administration and the Israeli government, argued the deal was fundamentally flawed for several reasons: 

National Archives (.gov)
 
* Past Secrecy: In 2018, Israel revealed a "nuclear archive" of documents showing Iran had lied about the scale of its past weapons program (the AMAD Project), leading to claims that the deal was built on a "giant fiction".

* Restricted Access: While the IAEA had access to declared sites, Iran declared its military sites off-limits, which critics argued allowed for potential clandestine work.

* "Sunsets": The deal's restrictions were temporary. Most were set to begin expiring by 2026, after which Iran could legally return to industrial-scale enrichment."

So up to 2024, all previous attempts to deal with Iran and nukes had failed.

Negotiations, Danegeld, trust but verify ☠️

Even Trump has tried negotiating. Even with very limited deterrent as well.

"the second Trump administration(beginning January 2025) attempted multiple rounds of intensive negotiations with Iran before the current conflict escalated into full-scale war in February 2026. 
Wikipedia

Chronology of Diplomatic Efforts (2025–2026)

* Initial Outreach (April 2025): Shortly after taking office, President Trump sent a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, proposing a new "nuclear peace agreement" and setting a 60-day deadline for compliance.

* Omani-Mediated Talks (April – May 2025):At least five rounds of indirect talks were held in Muscat, Rome, and Geneva. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi led these discussions, which were initially described as "constructive".

* The "Midnight Hammer" Strikes (June 2025): After the 60-day deadline passed without an agreement, the U.S. and Israel conducted "Operation Midnight Hammer," a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The administration justified this as an attempt to "improve the U.S. negotiating position" rather than end diplomacy.

* Final Ultimatum (February 2026): After months of stalemate, Trump issued a final 10-day deadline on February 20, 2026. A third round of high-level talks in Geneva occurred on February 26, but ended without a deal.

* Outbreak of War (February 28, 2026):Following the failure of the Geneva talks, the U.S. and Israel launched "Operation Epic Fury," a massive offensive that included the assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei and effectively ended formal diplomatic efforts."

So now we are to the point of 2 options:

Deterrence and or regime change.

Deterrence will stop and then may need to be repeated, as I said: rinse and repeat.

Regime change might be accomplished by the Iranians, but not holding my breath.

By continuous killing of the new one, until one you can deal with comes into power.

May be forced by those with the guns, when and if they get tired of being bombed and taking casualties for the leadership and or their country being broke from loss of revenue. Or not.

But again I believe we are at deterrence currently and it will cease sometime in April.

"of course antisemitsm exist in all of the political spectrum. But I am not an antisemnite. Period."

Nor did I accuse you of being.

You really should read my threads. There is a lot of deep diving through multiple sources. The AI searches alone, normally access 17 to 19 sources (it accesses much more, but that is the number it returns information back to the response.

Of course google's programming won't allow it to hit sources like FOX. 😱

At least I've never seen the fox icon roll by as it searches.,, CNN, ABC, Reuters BBC, YouTube, etc. … roll by each time. No! No bias there. 😏

I should add to all these I've posted. Iran's leadership practices again " taqiyya" in negotiations with infidels. So, since they use it, they of course assume and believe that the infidels do the same.

You should not believe a radical fundamentalist Islamic regime, because they will lie and deceive. They of course believe you are always doing the same to them.

Does make negotiating dam# near impossible. Catch 22 so to speak.

Dear God! 😔

If in charge, I'd pull out of it, ship the representatives back in cargo ships and burn the building to the ground. Or turn into drone construction. 🤔

Subject: Inside the UN's Plan to "Eradicate" Islamophobia Through Laws, Schools, and Speech Controls


link

The post that this has been going on since 1979, therefore war / deterrence / regime change is inevitable skips some key steps.

Persistence of a problem does not equate to exhaustion of policy options. Rather, it just shows difficulty, not inevitability of escalation and it also compresses a very complex set of outcomes into a single trajectory.

The fact that multiple approaches have not produced a final resolution doesn't necessarily mean they produced no constraint or delay, or that escalation becomes the only remaining option.

Framing the current situation as a binary between deterrence and regime change also skips over the middle space where most real-world policy tends to operate—imperfect containment, partial agreements, and managed risk.

The question is less whether prior approaches "failed" in an absolute sense, and more what effects they actually had and whether the current approach produces a more reliable outcome.

Incidentally, repeated leadership targeting is merely a tactic; some might actually designate it an incidence of terror. It only becomes a strategy if there's a credible path from that tactic to a stable political outcome—and that link isn't obvious.

Try applying that logic in reverse, if the top US leadership were constantly assassinated, and it highlights the problem. A campaign of repeated leadership targeting is more likely to be interpreted as existential than coercive. In that context, it tends to unify internal actors, harden positions, and reduce the space for negotiation rather than produce a more "dealable" outcome.

That doesn't mean it has no lasting tactical effect, it does, but the assumption that it translates into political compliance is doing a lot of work.

@greatpatton

"The US-Israeli attack on the the gas field is going to make Iran replicate on all the petrochemical facilities of the region. Vietnam is already rationing petrol, the economical effect are going to be massive and that alone will make sure that the US are left with no allies (except Israel) in the Asian region."

You mean Iran is going to hit "more" facilities? They have been hitting them since day one in the Arab world. Ask Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai… and others.

Also civilian deaths be dam#ed with the Iranian missiles and drones. Pretty indiscriminate as to who or what they hit. Especially the cluster bombs.

"They are all infidels!! Let Satan sort them out in Hell". 😈

It would be nice to give us a link to the interview of the ret Colonel or General

Well to do that I'd have to find all those interviews online daily online numorous times a day. As I see them mostly on TV or occasionally read in an article in print or even online. Which could take some time … I will try to comply with that request. However, I think I have said this before. I generally watch FOX or NEWSMAX, because in most cases I know what they are reporting on have some knowledge, and generally AFAIK what is fact or fiction

Or on the 3 legacy news channels, MSNOW/formerly MSNBC IIRC, and even shows like The View[which should be on the comedy network] IMO are mostly spin, propaganda, obfuscation, etc. are far too often for a variety of reasons. Many of which we have talked about here many, many times here in the past.

I even on an occasion watch CNN. But some of which I know is not always made clear is spin, agenda driven, etc., etc. by CNN.

That is my short assessment of where I get my information.

But I do doubt the US military´s ability to create a secure situation in Iran. War should be a continuance for politics, but after a war there should be a solid political plan to have a better situation than before the war.

What makes you think that ?

Are you privy to information the rest of us don't know ?

Have you any training or experience that makes you believe that your opinion is more valid than the US Military's top commanders ? Who have more intel on everything that any of us ?

I do not think that the current administration has the braines to do that.

Well based on everything I have said and know … You'd be very wrong, IMO. E.g. your assessment of the SoW could not be more wrong. Again based on everything I have been posting. Including my time in service. Again what is your training and experience on these military matters ? Beside reading about it and war gaming. Which is fine. As all of us here do those hobbies. However, I believe having it been my vocation, in the "art & science" of warfare so to speak. It was not a hobby … It was not just our job but our duty. We all took an oath to do so … Sometimes going in harm's way. But I'd think you know all that … I think …

IIRC the top military adviser Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Caine warned Trump that this war could become prolonged etc.

Yes if you have been readying my posts. Any OPLAN, etc. is based on usually 3-4 Courses of Action[COA]. E.g. Plan A, Plan B etc. if you will.

Some of the COAs will have more or less varying levels of risk. And the JCS, SoW, etc. briefs and makes the POTUS, etc. aware of all that. Much more than any here know …

I do not doubt the ability of the US forces to plan a successfull military campaign vs Iran. Well do that, I'd have to somethings will not be told to the media general public, etc.

No plan survives first contact.
What I deeply doubt is the ability of Trump to make the right decisions

As I said, there are generally always contingency plans, battle drills, SOPs that will make first contact less disrupting, confusing, etc.

if tough friends like Netanjahu or Putin can sweet talk him into something.

That is another fallacy that is going around by many in the media, detractors, the opposition party, etc. They don't convince him to do anything without the POTUS along with advice from SoW, JCS, etc. He does nothing unless he wants to. Some may not believe that … I and many others do. Plus again we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Do you ?

This is not a war between Iran and the US, it is an israeli/Netanjahu war of destruction vs Iran (and not only the current regime) in which the US got involved.

Again incorrect assumptions. The US was in conflict with Iran since 1979. The year I went on active duty. They overran our embassy. From that time on they were our enemy … Again … bottom line No one … I mean no one should not be concerned about Iran getting deployable Nukes.

That is the basis for all these recent actions. That being said two previous POTUSs foolishly, ignorantly, gave Iran's islamists gov'ts billions. That did nothing but fund their religiously inspired quest to destroy the infidels. Again their plans to get nukes. Plus funding islamist terrorism, e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq's Shia militias, the Huothis, etc.

That money went to killing not only Israels but many Americans too. Those former POTUSs and their incompetent Admin have huge amounts of blood on their hands. That will never come off. History will record that … Real history …

Rubio actually told the world how it happened.

Did he ? Did he say exactly what was going to happen ?

Hegseth is talking firepower

Yes that is what a SoW does. The principles of firepower are accuracy, volume and timing. Lessons were learned in Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia and A'stan. This action is not going to be like any of those previous conflicts. I don't know if you or other realize that. The SoW was an Infantryman as was I … we understand firepower and modern combined arms warfare. Starting at the lowest levels. Do you ? Were you an Infantry Plt Ldr or Co. Cdr ? Just making note … his, mine, etc. POV is far different than your and many others here. That should be obvious … at least all things considered.

Iran is using logistics.

Only with the fact that they have dwindling supplies of missiles and drones demonstrated by the 80-90% reduction in strikes. As the US and IDF are taking out not only their weapons but their supply points and production capabilities.

Again I have run log ops for Infantry Bns and a Mech Bde. Logistics is one of the driving forces behind any attacks, defenses, etc. The US is way ahead of Iran's version of logistics. That I am sure of …

The Formula is simple. Which will run out first the USA's supplies of missiles, bombs, etc. ? Or Iran's ? And Iran has to deal with attrition at massive levels in not only material, leadership, etc. and now even troops … Not only to bombs but desertions, etc.

The Guardian writes about the US-Iranian talks shortly before the war

link

This youtuber has nice explanation for my lack of confidence in the current administration of the USA

YouTube link

Incavart

They have failed, as Iran has never stopped enrichment or attempts to create one. They continued unabated. From one president to the next.

I can bang my head into a cinder block wall, trying to knock it down. Can I succeed? Possibly a tiny tiny chance. More likely I pass out or I kill myself.

I've tried to explain why real negotiations with the current regime are really near impossible, for any long term result.

Obviously you disagree. But if you did not, go back and read the link I gave to taqiyya and its practice. It's very appropriate for this regime.

This approach has not been tried. Without regime change, I believe it will be necessary again.

After all this decades, something new needed to be done. I would have been happy if any other president had tried it. They didn't.

So I wasted my time explaining all that … All what you posted can be disputed. And not necessarily accurate. But to continue this is a waste of my time … As always you are free to believe as you wish …

But the war will continue regardless. And again I think your opinion is based on bias, disdain, hatred, etec. of this POTUs and Admin. Not real facts from here, not thru a straw from thousands of miles away.

Dogtail I've detailed the negotiations and why they failed in this thread.

You can choose to buy the Guardian line, but their percentage negative press on the war is high. Their negative press on the administration is extremely high.
I can listen to Maddow and hear the same daily. So in other words I can hear what they print on any other MSM source. It will be pretty much the same thing. Whatever the talking points of the day are.

They are just a microcosm of the MSM.

Ai search results on the Guardian.

"The Guardian's Specific Policy Coverage (2024–2026)
Since January 2024, The Guardian's coverage of U.S. policy has been characterized by high levels of critical or "non-positive" sentiment across several key areas:

* Economic Policy & Tariffs:

* The Guardian has heavily emphasized the negative impact of current trade policies. Recent polling it commissioned found that 72% of Americans believe Trump's tariffs have cost them more money.

* Headlines frequently describe U.S. economic conditions under current policies as "struggling with affordability" and "putting life on hold" due to anxiety.

* Immigration & Human Rights:
* Reporting has been sharply critical of immigration enforcement, with investigations into "inhumane conditions" in detention and "outrage" over deportation policies.

* Foreign Policy:
* Coverage often frames U.S. international relations in negative terms, such as "reckless" or "dangerous" for global stability.

* LGBTQ+ and Social Issues:
* In a retrospective of the first year of the current term, The Guardian characterized various U.S. executive orders as "threats" to rights, including bans on trans people in the military and invalidating nonbinary passports. 
*

While The Guardian maintains a Left-Center bias and an "oppositional" editorial voice, its reporting reflects a consistent focus on the perceived negative consequences of current U.S. policies. "

"Stumpy" supposedly speaks.

Khamenei, better watch out, they might drop a house on you next.

"Iran's supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said in a message posted on a Telegram channel attributed to him that those responsible for the killing of Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, would soon pay the price.

"Every blood has a price that his ‘killers' will soon have to pay," the message said."

@35thOVI

If the only acceptable outcome is total elimination, then every intermediate success will always be defined as failure. That can make escalation look like the only option, even when the alternatives have had measurable, if limited, effects.

The historical record suggests these efforts did have measurable effects on timelines, visibility, and scope, even if they didn't produce a final resolution.

The issue isn't whether trust in negotiations exists— it usually doesn't in these contexts—but whether verification and incentives can produce bounded outcomes despite that. Dismissing that possibility entirely effectively leaves only maximal options.

And that's really the crux of it: "something new" doesn't just need to be different, it needs to demonstrate a clearer pathway to a stable outcome. It's not obvious yet that the current approach resolves the underlying problem rather than shifting it into a different form.Further, pounding the table that the most extreme lethality without even a barely articulable set of objectives will somehow produce an imagined result is misplaced.

I think there's another separate issue here, which is how much weight is being put on moral justification versus strategic outcome.

The argument seems to be that because the regime is dangerous—or could become more dangerous—more aggressive action now is inherently justified. But that doesn't answer whether those actions actually produce a better outcome. I have to ask are we discussing a modern state's rational policy or ideological, irrational conflict?

So the question again isn't whether the threat is real. It's whether the method being used is likely to resolve it—or simply escalate it under a different set of assumptions. Where are your receipts to indicate the former?

And more broadly, measuring actions primarily against what the adversary might do risks removing any limiting principle on escalation. Strategic coherence requires a clearer connection between means and outcome than that.

@Legion 4: I do not consider myself to be an expert, but TMP did not ask for a military background when I signed up here. So if I write that I doubt the ability of the US army to create a secure situation in Iran, I do not state that the US army is a bunch of amateurs. But as you should know it is difficult to secure a country as big as Iran, especially as you mentioned Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. It is not even the job of the US forces to make Iran a secure country, it is the job of the Iran administration to make sure that the strait of hormus is safe. But my whole critique on this campaign is that there is no new regime available that can substitute the islamistic regime. And I doubt that US general staff promised Trump that the Strait of Hormuz can be kept open. I have no Intel about that, but I don´t need to. Any other assumption would mean that you think the US general stuff is stupid.
My disgust for Hegseth and Trump is my personal opinion, it does not add or take away anything from the points I make. I remember Trump saying that he trusts Putin even when his own Intelligence service says something different.How I am supposed to take this guy serious?
Even if it offends you (I don´t know why), but I do not consider Hegseth fit for the job because he has never been a higher officer. But my point is,
"Hegseth is talking firepower, Iran is using logistics":
Hegseth is doing a commercial, Iran is using the vulnerability of international trade lines of oil and fertilizer as an asset. Hegseth is using ammunition, Iran is using oil prices.

Rubio said why the US joined the israeli attack. I did not say that he offered a look into the future. There seems to be a misunderstanding of my words on your side.

@ dogtail

"Operation Epic Fury is increasingly looking like an epic fail."

link – a well-written and cogent overview of the issue.Worth reading.

" What began as an attempt to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of unrivaled U.S. military power is fast becoming one of the most consequential strategic miscalculations of this century — a pivotal moment in the steady erosion of U.S. hegemony."

Reality is a bitter pill to swallow but the (I presume? grey boxes…) constant outrage of some does not change the fact that an amateur US leadership has possibly permanently emasculated US power.

Incavart your logic seems to be:

We can't prove this will work, therefore don't attempt it at all.

As well as

This cannot end conclusively, therefore don't do it.

First I, NOR the government for that matter, has promised this will be conclusive.

I have said, baring a regime change that will negotiate in faith, it won't. We will have to rinse and repeat.

You keep writing as if any previous attempts have been successful.

Please state how, how long and if so, why Iran still was attempting to produce nukes and had a stockpile of enriched uranium, (which their leadership has now admitted to and which our ambassadors said they were told in negotiations. That of course most did not believe).

If those negotiations and treaties had been successful, the enriched uranium would NOT be there. We would not have to deal AGAIN with the same situation.

We know after the 12 day strikes, Iran immediately started trying to dig up the old nuclear development areas again.

We know verification failed. Again I gave the information. Iran only allowed them access to certain areas. Try finding a kidnap victim if 3 rooms are off limits. 😏

I have documented these things over and over, in just this thread. I've used the power of AI to search the engine for them.

I've documented direct Iranian attacks on our troops and assets. Attacks on same by Iranian paid and supplied proxies.

How about:

"Major Incidents and Foiled Plots

Bethesda Assassination (1980): In July 1980, David Theodore Belfield (also known as Daoud Salahuddin), an American convert acting as an Iranian operative, assassinated Ali Akbar Tabatabai in Bethesda, Maryland. Tabatabai was a former aide to the Shah of Iran and a prominent critic of the Islamic Republic.

Saudi Ambassador Plot (2011): U.S. authorities disrupted a plot by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, using explosives at a restaurant in Washington, D.C..

Post-2020 Murder-for-Hire Plots: Since the 2020 death of Qassem Soleimani, U.S. law enforcement has disrupted at least 17 Iranian-backed plots on U.S. soil. These include:

Plot Against John Bolton: A member of the IRGC was charged in 2022 for a murder-for-hire plot targeting former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Targeting of Dissidents: Iranian operatives have repeatedly targeted dissidents, such as Masih Alinejad, for kidnapping or assassination in New York.

Pakistani National Charges (2024): A Pakistani man with ties to Iran was recently charged for allegedly trying to hire hitmen to assassinate high-ranking American public officials.
Homeland Security (.gov)

Cyber Attacks on Infrastructure
Iran is recognized as a top-tier cyber threat to the U.S. homeland, frequently targeting critical infrastructure.
Homeland Security (.gov)

Financial Institutions:
Between 2011 and 2013, Iranian hackers conducted massive "denial-of-service" (DDoS) attacks against major U.S. banks.
New York Dam Incident (2013): Iranian hackers successfully gained access to the control system of the Bowman Avenue Dam in Rye Brook, New York.
Election Interference: The FBI has identified Iranian actors as being involved in operations to influence or interfere with the 2020 U.S. elections."
"

You spoke earlier about the killing of their leaders.. well:

Several major Iranian-linked plots targeting U.S. presidents and high-ranking officials have been foiled by law enforcement in recent years, particularly focusing on President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden.
House Committee on Homeland Security (.gov)
House Committee on Homeland Security (.gov)
+2
Key Foiled Attacks

The Asif Merchant Plot (2024-2026):
Status: Convicted on March 6, 2026.
Target: President Donald Trump, former President Joe Biden, and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Details: Merchant, a Pakistani national with ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), traveled to the U.S. in April 2024 to recruit hitmen. He unknowingly met with undercover FBI agents posing as assassins and was arrested in July 2024 while attempting to flee the country.

The Farhad Shakeri Plot (2024):
Status: Charges unsealed in November 2024; Shakeri remains at large in Iran.
Target: Then-President-elect Donald Trump.
Details: The DOJ unsealed a criminal complaint alleging that Shakeri was tasked by the IRGC to provide a plan to assassinate Trump within a seven-day window in September 2024. The plot was unmasked through recorded interviews Shakeri had with the FBI while he was in Iran."

So as to justified. I think that was proven long ago.

Israel's go back further. But I am not here to defend theirs.

As far as making them angry by doing this?

Since when has this regime NOT been angry against the Great Satan or the Little Satan?

Since when have they stopped striking out at the U.S. and Israel?

If not them, their proxies or some religious radicalized individual or individuals.

I have lived with this situation since the 79 revolution and I am tired of it!

Get on plane and wonder. Get on a ship and wonder? Walk into a restaurant and wonder. Run in a marathon and wonder. If you're Jewish, go to the synagogue and send your children to school and wonder, (as those up by Detroit or in Rotterdam). Send your loved one to work in a tower in NYC and wonder.

Again, I don't think this will be conclusive. But it is an overdue start!

If you live in the U.S., don't get lost in your hate of the one doing it.

Would you honestly feel the same way if Clinton or Obama had done this. I think if you are truly honest, you would say no.

I would even had backed whoever was in charge last time.

Or follow the "everything the US does is automatically a failure" philosophy of the previous poster to mine.

IN:

"BREAKING NEWS
Israel attacked Iranian navy targets in Caspian Sea – Israeli media

Israel attacked targets linked to Iran's navy in the Caspian Sea on Wednesday, according to Israeli media reports.

An eyewitness told Iran International that several vessels in the Caspian Sea were targeted on Wednesday evening."

@35thOVI

"Rinse and repeat" is not a strategy—it's an acknowledgment that the underlying political problem remains unresolved and will be managed through recurring force. That may be a choice, but it is not the same as achieving a defined end state.

The existence of a real threat does not, by itself, demonstrate that the chosen remedy is strategically sound.

I don't think the Clinton/Obama point really holds as framed. Supporting a strike in hindsight against a threat that had not yet matured is precisely how "imminence" becomes elastic over time.

Iran is clearly adversarial and has pursued nuclear capability, but after decades the issue is not simply intent—it's capability, timeline, and constraint. The fact that this has remained unresolved for so long cuts both ways. It suggests difficulty, but it also raises the question of how imminent the threat has actually been at any given point.

More importantly, the current discussion seems to assume that because the threat is real, the present approach must therefore be sound. That doesn't follow.

Some of the second-order effects were not especially obscure. Strikes in and around the Gulf carry obvious risks to shipping lanes. Leadership targeting risks escalation and retaliation. Regional bases are exposed. None of that requires perfect foresight—it's baseline scenario planning.

Which is why the gap between the confidence of the argument and the clarity of the outcome is noticeable.

Because if the working model is periodic escalation, attrition, and then reset, that's not really solving the problem—it's managing it through recurring conflict, with all the attendant risks. Frustration with the regime is understandable. But frustration is not, by itself, a substitute for a coherent strategy.

And speaking of "regimes", we have our own traditions and rules. In a system like ours, it's the administration's responsibility to articulate the objective, the pathway, and the end state—particularly when the policy involves sustained use of force.

Public scrutiny isn't an obstacle to strategy; it's part of how strategy is tested.

@ochoin
thanx for the link
The article summarizes everything I assume in a much better and concise way than I am able to write.
One note: I think China still gets oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran seems to allow shipment of oil if it is paid in yuan, a smart way to reduce the significance of the US Dollar
There is another article on Trump there
I do not recommend to read it, as it is quite saddening
link

Incavart

Again specific answers for the questions?

"You keep writing as if any previous attempts have been successful.

Please state how, how long and if so, why Iran still was attempting to produce nukes and had a stockpile of enriched uranium, (which their leadership has now admitted to and which our ambassadors said they were told in negotiations. That of course most did not believe)."

I'll ask another:

How would you have contained the nuclear development and destroying the 60% Uranium? Knowing verification could not be enforced.

Easy to say current policy is wrong. But what would your "new" plan be that has eluded every president since 1979?

"suggests difficulty, but it also raises the question of how imminent the threat has actually been at any given point."

Do you have first hand knowledge it was not imminent? I don't.

We did not know passenger jets being flown into towers and the pentagon was imminent. Yet they were. Those flying them, Amish, Hindu, Twelve Day Adventist, Rabid Catholic Nuns?? 🤔 What were they again?

Lastly, the success of the information our intelligence and Israel intelligence had and has, is amazing considering what was destroyed in the first few days and the amount of Iranian leadership eliminated almost daily.

Yet the media, politicians and individuals question how they knew how "imminent" the threat is and was. 🙄

I think China still gets oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran seems to allow shipment of oil if it is paid in yuan, a smart way to reduce the significance of the US Dollar

Iran literally has no way to determine anything about a ship other than -- "Look, it's a ship!" Their C3I is smashed, they have no actve naval patrols to stop, board and verify anything (if even the ship's crew would allow it). All they are doing is dumping mines in the ocean and shooting at targets of opportuntity – like they recently attacked a Thailand-flagged tanker carrying oil to Thailand.

@ dogtail
Your linked article pulls no punches. It is, I think, quite pragmatic in the face of current events. Definitely worth reading though I lean to "they're making it up as they go" school of thought.

I think it better to face the truth, no matter how unpalatable, than avoid it. Some here would disagree. And, if it gives you any comfort, as the man who swallowed a peach pit said. "This too shall pass".

@sbminisguy
link

link

@35thOVI

And you think you've answered any of my questions?

This is the same loop—more examples, more outrage, more certainty—but still no mechanism. You keep expanding the problem as if that answers the question. It doesn't. It avoids it.

A list of incidents is not a strategy. It establishes hostility, not imminence, not effectiveness, and not how this approach leads to a better outcome.

And the "you can't prove it wasn't imminent" line isn't serious. That standard justifies anything at any time. It's not analysis—it's a blank check.

You're also inflating a handful of covert, often-failed plots into proof of a war-level threat. If that were the standard, half the world would already be in open conflict.

The burden isn't on me to disprove imminence. It's on you to demonstrate it. Listing grievances doesn't meet that standard.

More importantly, none of what you've written explains how this produces a stable outcome rather than ongoing escalation. If the answer is just "keep hitting them until something changes," that's not a plan—it's drift.

And if they were simply racing to build and use a weapon, we likely wouldn't still be talking about 60% enrichment after decades. That suggests a threshold posture—serious, but not automatically imminent.

What this reads like is a conclusion first, with justifications layered on afterward. You can keep adding examples, but that doesn't reconstruct a strategy that isn't there. At that point, there's nothing left to debate.

So Chinese oil & Iranian tankers are passing through Hormuz, without hinderance? And oil to the US etc is bottled up?

What a remarkable state of affairs—America policing the world so effectively that its rivals trade freely, its adversaries profit, and its own supply lines choke?

You'd almost think the system was designed backwards. Oh, wait a minute…..

The Dick Cheney Crisis Mode is in full swing.
"Smash them for three weeks!"
"But Sir? What happens after that?"
"Shut up! I'll do all the thinking here! Do you know who I am???"

We all know how well that went.
No point in planning for schools for girls. We blew one up on the first day.

Is there a betting site that takes bets for "Boots on the ground"?
What's the Over/Under? 🤔

Y'all get back to me in a month, to tell us how well it went.

A month? You're a blind optimist, John.

Incavart you rarely answer a question. You pose more and more and say someone else's do not meet your thresholds.

Consistently complaining about policies, without answers of your own, is just that.., complaining.

I'm not limiting it to just this thread, as if history of other posts do not exist.

I'm curious, have you supported 5 things this president has done, on the TMP site? If so, prove them.

You consistently demand proof from myself and others.

Nothing we say will change your views in this action or others of the current administration's actions. I've known that for a while.

So continue to disagree. In the end our views will not change the outcome and none of us are privy to the inside information.

But supplying answers to you and other's questions directed at me, is eating up too much time, if all you are ever going to do is repeat the same cycle of tired MSM reporting.

The MSM had circled around failure on day two. That has not and will not change. So if that is the only sources you and others will trust. Well enough said.

I'm putting out what the administration said was their goals on day 3. What the successes have been. What I believe the outcome will be. What led us to this point and decision. What the "long term" justification for this conflict was. Not only the "nukes".

This regime justified it years ago in my eyes. For me, all that matters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict regime change by mid-April, maybe sooner. And the Strait will soon be open with little to no Iranian interference. One way or another we shall soon see.

Anybody heard from the Kurds lately?

Doc if you are right. There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth, and hiding on
TMP, until the next cause du jour appears. Most have never admitted they have been wrong about any of the others.

OVI +1

SMb +1

I do not consider myself to be an expert

Nor am I … but I have a very good working knowledge of military ops, etc. This is not my first rodeo …

So if I write that I doubt the ability of the US army to create a secure situation in Iran, I do not state that the US army is a bunch of amateurs. But as you should know it is difficult to secure a country as big as Iran, especially as you mentioned Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.

Yes the US Army is far from being amateurs. Nor are any other branches of the US Armed Forces.

Plus I have mentioned that Iran would be very difficult to secure. I also said there is little reason to do so. Save for the location of their nuke material, if need be. And that will be a raid like in Venezuela.

It is not even the job of the US forces to make Iran a secure country, it is the job of the Iran administration to make sure that the strait of hormus is safe. But my whole critique on this campaign is that there is no new regime available that can substitute the islamistic regime.

Yes as in Iraq it was challenging to actually get a functioning, effective working gov't. But this campaign is not over. And the US is making the Strait of Hormuz safe for navigation … And frankly none of us know what the OPLAN is for all of that. But there is one … Whether you or anymore doubts or not.

And I doubt that US general staff promised Trump that the Strait of Hormuz can be kept open. I have no Intel about that, but I don´t need to. Any other assumption would mean that you think the US general stuff is stupid.

You nor I have any idea what the JCS, etc. told the POTUS. And of course I know they are not stupid… just the opposite …

My disgust for Hegseth and Trump is my personal opinion, it does not add or take away anything from the points I make.

Yes and everyone is entitled to their opinion as am I. But IMO based actually having well over decade on Active Duty. Your comments are not valid… again IMO …

How I am supposed to take this guy serious?

You don't know what is actually going at that level on nor do I. But I do think based on a number of factors … some should take this guy and his admin very serious. He and this staff have done more to finally take on the task to remove Iran from being a clear and present danger. And that is good for everyone … Unless some want a fundamentalists islamic regime being armed with deployable nukes. Do you ? Does anyone beside this islamists regime ?

Even if it offends you (I don´t know why), but I do not consider Hegseth fit for the job because he has never been a higher officer.

It only annoys me as I strongly feel your knowledge and personal opinion is wrong. Again, not having some of the knowledge, training and experience that I have tried repeatedly to convey. That is my opinion. Do you know who many SecDet/now SoW have that on the ground current combat experience, knowledge, etc.? Do you know many in that position and others at that high of a level never served in the military ? Yet were chosen for those elevated positions and in many cases were successful.

You and many others dismiss the SoW's appeal to the troops. The value of high moral. Seeing how he and his staff are taking care of them. Setting high standards, etc., etc. Only the way someone who had recently served in combat and knows what it is like to lead a Plt or Co.

The SoW nor the POTUS does not make any decision without their staffs' evaluation, input, etc., etc. … I know how that works again being at a Bn and Bde level.

I see how the SoW is a warrior. He thoroughly cleaned out DEI, CRT, LGBTQ, etc. flotsam that was forced, by the previous POTUS, his admin, etc. on the Pentagon and the US Armed Forces. The fact that you and some others don't get how important all that is to combat readiness, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.

Demonstrates to me and others you/they are punching above your/their weight class. And being so vehemently about something that many don't know really anything about military leadership, training for combat, etc. Seems that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink comes to mind.

Hegseth is doing a commercial, Iran is using the vulnerability of international trade lines of oil and fertilizer as an asset. Hegseth is using ammunition, Iran is using oil prices.

Again, the SoW is doing what his duty is, what his job is. Waging war on a violent enemy. Iran has little choice to try to use the only leverage they have left. After the serious beating Iran's forces and leadership has taken from the USA and IDF.

And again the US and IDF are making the "trade lines" safer as the war goes on. Not fast enough for you/some, etc.? You say you know the size of the country of Iran, the size of their military assets, etc. If you and others really understand that they may not be making the comments, they are.

I did not say that he offered a look into the future. There seems to be a misunderstanding of my words on your side.

Maybe … but it seems otherwise.

No matter you can state your opinion as will I …

"Operation Epic Fury is increasingly looking like an epic fail."

Again this statement is ignoring the massive losses inflicted on Iran's military and leadership. In a campaign that is ongoing. If one thinks it looks like an epic failure. They are blinded by the reality of the situation. And are so biased they comments have no veracity. Or are just a fool. Whoever they are.

" What began as an attempt to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of unrivaled U.S. military power is fast becoming one of the most consequential strategic miscalculations of this century — a pivotal moment in the steady erosion of U.S. hegemony."

That is biased and more wishful thinking than based of the evidence.

Reality is a bitter pill to swallow but the (I presume? grey boxes…) constant outrage of some does not change the fact that an amateur US leadership has possibly permanently emasculated US power.

That is an amateurish statement, with little accuracy in face of the facts.

Again based more on personal disdain, hatred, bias, etc. looking thru a straw from a very great distance. With no accurate perception. That perception is not based on the facts in front of you/them. Yes now that is a bitter pill … very bitter …

If you have an AI, ask it about the Kurds. Chat GPT just gave me (too long to post here) a detailed look at Kurdish resistance, which is organizing and growing.