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

Reports from groups like Iran Human Rights indicate that at least 30 other individuals, including children, remain at imminent risk of execution following similar expedited trials related to the recent uprising."

This is exactly what the Nazis did as the Reich was collapsing, they went on a murderous killing spree to settle scores and just vent anger at the people for "failing them" against the Allies. Horrifying, but not unprecedented.

@35thovi

Operational details and target sets are rightly classified.

However, classification protects execution—timing, methods, specific targets—not the existence of a strategy or its objective. A campaign still requires a defined end state and a coherent mechanism linking current actions to that outcome.

"You're not supposed to know" doesn't address that. It conveniently skirts it. There is a clear distinction between withholding how operations are conducted and being unable to articulate what those operations are intended to achieve. The former is standard practice. The latter is the issue being raised.

The suggestion that stating an objective would allow Iran to "hide"; well it does not hold up. Fixed infrastructure, force posture, and national-level capabilities cannot simply be made invisible. At most, signaling may influence tactical deployment at the margins. That is a tactical consideration, not a substitute for strategy.

Saying "they must have a plan because we don't see it" is likewise not analysis—it is assumption. Surprise and initial operational success explain how strikes are conducted effectively. They do not explain how the campaign produces a stable political outcome. If the answer is that operations will continue until conditions change, then that is not a concealed strategy—it is an open-ended cycle of attrition without a defined end state. And as you can see with the Pentagon's 200 Billion replenishment ask, cycles of attrition without end states can cost a developed nation a lot.

It's all about the end state.

The Japan incident: Operational surprise is one thing—public messaging is another. Not notifying allies ahead of time can be justified on operational grounds. Referencing Pearl Harbor in a public exchange with a close ally is not operational, its rhetorical, and it introduces avoidable friction into an alliance relationship that depends on trust and coordination. Very sloppy policy wise.

And yes, deterrence can be a strategy.

But it only works if it's clearly defined—what behavior is being deterred, what triggers escalation, and what constitutes success. What's been described so far is ongoing degradation of capability, which may very well support deterrence, but isn't itself a clearly articulated deterrence framework but rather an open-ended application of force. Most developed countries with a general staff understand this. And I assure you that out JCS are capable of immaculate planning. The White House, not so much.

Now I ask you, can you define what, specifically, is being deterred here, and what outcome would indicate that deterrence has been achieved?

My concern at this point is that these nutcases might blow up their own oil and production facilities/fields out of spite. And under that concern, it might actually be valid to get some boots on the ground to protect these facilities from the Iranian hardliners and preserve them for the world and the people of Iran. I do think this would be a temporary situation— the ability of the hardliners to pull off such a thing is limited, and becoming more limited each day.

As a side note, my guess would be that China also does NOT want these facilities and fields destroyed— as I understand it, they rely on these sources for their national (and military) energy needs. It's one thing to close the Straits of Hormuz for a brief period. But to destroy everything?!? If China got wind of such an action, they might very well let the US and Israel know so it can be prevented. But that's too big a "might" to rely on.

By the way, the first rule of any military strategy is to not let the enemy know what that strategy is. Ever.

So guess what— NO President or Sec of War or Sec of State or anyone else connected to the military who actually knows what the strategy is, is EVER going to tell the media what that strategy is. EVER. In fact, their best choice is to LIE to the media, or to appear not to have the actual strategy they do have.

File that under "Duh."

How is it that this site, which supposedly features people who engage in simulated military battles, apparently has some who don't know the most basic rule of military action: "Never let them see you coming."

Neither the President nor the Sec of War should be expected to name the strategy or full goals of a war to the media, or even the American people. Grand ideals, yes. But actual plans? NEVER.

You're just gonna have to deal with not having all the information. Because if we had it, so would the enemy. So you don't know what's going on? Well boo frickin' hoo. YOU are NOT SUPPOSED to know! You will know, eventually. But for now, our ignorance is also the enemy's ignorance, and that keeps our guys alive and makes their guys dead.

Deception is the greatest virtue of war.

Pure Sun Tzu, y'all.

"Iran's South Pars gas field,"

For some reason I keep reading that as "South Park"
I'm sure there will be an episode about that soon… LOL

Lilian, please quote Stalin's statement calling himself a staunch supporter of the Axis powers and Germany, and provide the source.

I'm also still waiting for a link to the alliance treaty between Germany and the USSR…

dogtail: An anti-Semite is a Nazi. A person who rejects a certain nation, in this case, the Jews, and calls for its oppression and destruction.

Zionism is a Jewish national movement that aims to restore the Jewish state.

The concepts of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have nothing in common.
An anti-Zionist Jew is a common phenomenon (translated from French):

link

A little about the level of NATO military presence in modern warfare:

link

SBminisguy, I am personally amazed by the accuracy of Iranian missile and drone strikes. And it's unlikely their missiles are flying along Google maps… Iran is clearly being provided with significant intelligence and weapons targeting capabilities… Unknown friends…
Everyone's war goals are different, but Trump has already defeated Iran seven or eight times in the last three weeks)))
"Tehran in three days!")))
Not all leftists are like "globalists"))) For some, these "Trotskyists" are also enemies))) I advocate for sovereign, strong states with developed, self-sufficient economies… I have no interest in ideas of "world revolution")))

greatpatton, it's hard to feel joy in Russia, knowing that madmen and fanatics are right now putting the world on the brink of environmental disaster, if not nuclear war…
And yes – consider Russia a constitutional monarchy)))

35thOVI, Iran should be completely indifferent to who makes decisions in the opposing coalition and how. Let the Jews and the Americans sort things out among themselves. Iran needs to strike where its enemy will feel the most pain, without discrimination. Otherwise, Iran is doomed to defeat.

Parzival, you remind me of our Russian Z-fanatics… The figure of the Great "Pu" is impeccable, and no one understands his grand plans))) Strategy always becomes obvious very quickly…

@cuprum2
"dogtail: An anti-Semite is a Nazi. A person who rejects a certain nation, in this case, the Jews, and calls for its oppression and destruction."

This is not a definition that is commonly approved in Germany. Antisemitism is hate towards a certain religious group.
Nazi is the short form of a person who supports Nationalsozialismus. That was the German form of what MAGA nowaddays stands for in America.

Semites are a group (roughly like Slavs or Germans) of ancient peoples. Jews are only a subset of them. They speak languages ​​descended from ancient Semitic. They live in the Middle East, as well as in northern and eastern Africa. This has nothing to do with religion. Although scientific definitions have now been discarded as intolerant. Absolute ignorance reigns…

A Nazi, as I understand it, is a person who considers a nation (any nation) inferior. A racist is a person who considers a race (any race—white, black, yellow, or subspecies) inferior…

If this is not the case, you can call anyone you don't like a Nazi or a racist…

Cuprum, I'm confused; we know Stalin was allied with Hitler from 1939 until 1941. and equally an aggressor state. Which was very traumatic for American Communists.

from Sean King: The US's and Israel's strategy for regime change/reform in Iran is glaringly obvious and will eventually prove effective. Likely by mid to late April, Iran will be led by somebody amenable to US interests. Here's how that will happen:

1. Quickly assassinate any prominent or semi-prominent regime official hostile to the US agenda, and continue doing so forever until a moderate one eventually takes power.

2. Destroy the regime's ability to fund itself and pay its thugs by (a) taking and holding or disabling Kharg Island (through which 90% of Iran's oil flows), destroying Iran's other oil distribution structure (the remaining 10%), and (b) destroying the bank, including its backup servers, that the Republican Guard uses to pay its people.

3. Relentlessly target police checkpoints and police officers in general with drone attacks, making it difficult for the regime to control the movement of the Iranian people.

4. Use superior drones to down or disable the drones that Iran uses to surveil and suppress the populace.

5. Provide drone air cover to anti-regime protestors.

6. Ensure that regime officials cannot reliably use electronic communications for fear of being surveilled, or worse, geolocated.

7. Ensure that regime officials cannot gather in person to communicate and coordinate for fear of being killed en masse with precision guided bombs (this has already happened multiple times).

8 Restore Internet (via Starlink or otherwise) so that anti-regime folk can communicate and coordinate.

9. By these means and others make defection by rank and file regime members the only sane move.

10. Have the people and defectors take to the streets and overthrow their Islamic oppressors.

Last night was a test run for number 10. With US and [Israeli] air cover and support, and with police stations and checkpoints systematically destroyed, Iranians took to the streets en masse to celebrate the "Festival of Fire", a holiday with Zoroastrian roots that is DISDAINED by the Islamist regime and normally brutally suppressed. By all accounts the festival celebrations were large and mostly unmolested. The regime was unable to stop them this time. The test run was successful.

Regime change/reform is coming. Soon. I've said all along that I expected it to happen within 60 days of the initial hostilities. That would be the end of April. But it may well happen before then.

I do think that different definitions of antisemitism can be true, antisemitism in Germany used to be anti jew because that was the group of semnites that lived here (and still does). But I do consider your definition more correct.

If you mean that a Nazi is a person who think his own country is superiour, I would call this person a nationalist. Nazi/ Nationalsozialismus is a special form of nationalism, but I don´t want to go to deep into definition, cause as soon as you try to make a definition of fascism it becomes more academic than useful.

I don´t like to put people in certain categories, especially the left/right categories are kind of dumb.
You can call anybody anything, but this doesn´t make it true. If you consider the purpuse of communication mainly as a self assurance, it actually makes you far more resilient to any form of insult.I mean, if anybody that I will never meet call me anything on the internet, it actually does not matter. He might feel better, but why should I feel bad?

BTW the Hitler-Stalin-Pakt is a fact, and you know that.

Nazi is the short form of a person who supports Nationalsozialismus. That was the German form of what MAGA nowaddays stands for in America.

So, dogtail, we MAGA types are Nazis?

Not sure if I can converse politely with someone who thinks I am a Nazi. If that is NOT what you mean, please clarify.

doc mcb, how do you know this? I haven't seen a military alliance treaty. I've seen the "Non-Aggression Pact," but many European countries had such pacts with Germany (for example, the German-Polish Pact of 1934).
link
The only difference with the Soviet-German Pact was that Stalin obliged Hitler not to lay claim to the territories that belonged to Russia before World War I and were taken by Poland during the Russian Civil War. A perfectly reasonable demand. The USSR and Poland considered each other adversaries from the moment the Poles annexed Russian territory. Furthermore, a year earlier, Poland, together with Hitler, had divided the territory of the USSR's ally, Czechoslovakia.

You're mistaking wishful thinking for reality. Iranians have always celebrated this holiday with joy, without any government prohibition.
And now they've come out under the bombs of the US and Israel to demonstrate their contempt and steadfastness in the struggle.

Pay attention to the filming dates… There are a huge number of them on YouTube, filmed long before the war…

YouTube link

YouTube link

@doc mcb:
No, I will not call you a Nazi.Cause you would understand something rather different than what I mean by the word Nazi.
If you call somebody a Nazi in Germany normally that is the end of a discussion, period.
A Nazi is somebody from the german and austrian past. There is no Italian Nazi in the Italian past, those are Fascists.
A Nazi does not necessarily hate jews or semnites.

Unfortunately according to the definition of Nationasozialismus in the German wikipedia MAGA has alot of the characteristics of the German movement between 1933 and 1945.
I will make another post later why I do see many characteristics of the Nationalsozialismus in MAGA.

Dogtail, no, you misunderstood. A nationalist glorifies their national group, its history, successes, and achievements. At the same time, they don't consider any other nation inferior. For example, if a country is poor and can't provide most of its people with a decent education, that doesn't mean their brains and thinking are inherently less teachable. They simply lack the opportunity to achieve anything for reasons beyond their control.

A Nazi considers their nation superior to others simply by its innate qualities. They believe they are smarter and more successful in any situation simply because of their nationality. He is a "master race" by birthright.
Nationalism is loving your people, Nazism is hating other people.

German Nazism is just one form of intolerance towards other peoples. The German Nazis considered any non-Aryan peoples to be "Untermensch".

" why I do see many characteristics of the Nationalsozialismus in MAGA."

Okay, I work with a google translation, sorry for the length

"National Socialism was a radical, racist, and anti-democratic ideology propagated by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP). It was based on several central pillars that shaped political, social, and cultural life in Germany between 1933 and 1945:"

Of course you can take away Hitler and the NSDAP and Germany
The points I would consider imprtant are radical and anti-democratic. I do not know enough about the amount of racism especially in MAGA, but as I consider the USA a racist society per se, I would see MAGA scoring points in that category.

"Racism and Antisemitism: At its core was the division of people into "superior" (Aryan) and "inferior" races. Jews were stigmatized as the main enemy ("enemy of the world") and systematically persecuted and murdered in the Holocaust."

MAGA has no obvious anti-semitism, but white supremicy is a problem/plays a role in that movement. It does not make all voters of Trump racists or white supremicists.

"National Community (Volksgemeinschaft): The goal was to create a homogeneous society based on "racial" purity. Particular interests (such as trade unions) were eliminated in order to prioritize the community over the individual."

Trade unions were infiltrated and suppressed way before MAGA. Again white supremicy finds a home.

"Führer Principle (Führerprinzip): The total dictatorship was based on absolute loyalty to Adolf Hitler, who was considered the infallible leader."

You have to put in the name of the current cult leader obviously. But that guy is not ideologist, he just uses the movement for his own interest. The ideology is from the project 2025, but I am not sure.

"Social Darwinism: Nazi ideology applied the principle of "survival of the fittest" to society. "Weak" or non-conforming people were persecuted as "unworthy of life.""

The winner takes all
and
the right of the strongest
is part of US culture. No health insurance takes care of the rest. But I do not consider Social darwinism part of MAGA.

"Living Space in the East: Through war, Germany aimed to conquer territories in the east to create "living space" for the "Aryan race," accompanied by the expulsion and enslavement of the local population."

No, that does not fit at all.

"Ultranationalism: An extreme nationalism that placed one's own nation above all others and enforced through military force."

MAGA used to have an anti-war part, but that is gone.

"Anti-Communism & Anti-Liberalism: National Socialism rejected parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and communism."

100% MAGA

"Gleichschaltung (coordination): All social organizations, associations, and media were brought under the control of the Nazi Party (NSDAP)."

Now everything critical is called fake news or left mainstram media or whatever

"Propaganda & Cult of the Führer: The Propaganda Ministry disseminated Nazi ideology and portrayed Hitler as a savior to secure the loyalty of the population."

Wrong name for MAGA

"Structural Violence: The regime was based on terror and violence, perpetrated by the SA, SS, and Gestapo against political opponents, Jews, and other minorities."

The social bubbles doesn´t make it necessary, but ICE looked like the SA to me. But again, Jews are not the target.

Cuprum2, I think if one person loves their country, this person is a patriot. If one considers their nation superiour, that person is a nationalist.
So if you are a russian nationalist and I am a german patriot, evrything is fine cause we are the same. But if I am a german Nationalist and you are a Russian Imperialist, we get in trouble.
I guess we just name the same thing differently.

Parz, Doc +1

"And yes, deterrence can be a strategy.

But it only works if it's clearly defined—what behavior is being deterred, what triggers escalation, and what constitutes success. What's been described so far is ongoing degradation of capability, which may very well support deterrence, but isn't itself a clearly articulated deterrence framework but rather an open-ended application of force. Most developed countries with a general staff understand this. And I assure you that out JCS are capable of immaculate planning. The White House, not so much.

Now I ask you, can you define what, specifically, is being deterred here, and what outcome would indicate that deterrence has been achieved?"

Incavert

Although again others have chimed in with answers. I'll say, much of what they wanted to deter, have been well stated by the department of war. Again I and others have already posted in here what those are. I am not going to keep rehashing them over and over.

Please don't come back with: "you should be able to easily state it then".

That has become a redundant circle back tactic.

IMO you keep demanding something very very specific, simply in the hopes to say when this ends: "See he failed!!".

Don't believe what we (those who support this) have posted, here is AI's current version.

FYI AI is also the search engine that gave me the results that the only things left to attempt with Iran were Deterrent and or regime change, based on the failed and attempted policies of the past with the current Iranian regime.

So not even my opinion. Only the rinse and repeat were my contribution and I based it on a potential for necessity if the current regime survives this.

AI response:

20 sites

The current conflict in Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, is being framed by the Trump administration as a strategy of "Peace Through Strength" and "Maximum Pressure". According to statements from President Donald Trump and the Department of War (led by Secretary Pete Hegseth), the conflict's objectives are being achieved through a methodical, multi-phase military campaign known as Operation Epic Fury.
war.gov
war.gov
+4

Strategic Objectives and Achievement
The administration has outlined four primary goals for the campaign:
YouTube
YouTube

Neutralizing the Nuclear Threat: Targeting and "obliterating" nuclear facilities to ensure Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.

Dismantling Missile Capabilities: Methodically "hunting down" and destroying ballistic missile launchers and production infrastructure.
Annihilating the Iranian Navy: Degrading Iran's ability to threaten international shipping, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz.

Ending State-Sponsored Terrorism: Striking the regime's security apparatus and command-and-control nodes to weaken its regional proxy networks.
war.gov
war.gov
+4

Current Status of the Conflict
As of March 20, 2026, the administration and military leadership report significant progress:

Military Degradation: President Trump has stated that Iran's military is "decimated," claiming U.S. and Israeli strikes have wiped out its air defenses and severely weakened its air force.

Naval Superiority: The Pentagon has declared the Iranian Navy essentially "gone" after striking more than 120 ships and multiple submarines.
Surgical Pressure: Secretary Hegseth described the strikes as "surgical, overwhelming, and unapologetically" focused on military infrastructure rather than being an "endless war".

Decapitation Strikes: The initial wave of the conflict included strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking officials, significantly disrupting the regime's leadership.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
+6

Implementation of Deterrence
The conflict was initiated after the administration concluded that diplomacy had been "exhausted". The strategy of deterrence is being "achieved" through:
ajc.org
ajc.org

Massive Force Posture: Amassing air and naval assets in the region at levels not seen since 2003.

Economic Coercion: Reinstating a "maximum pressure" campaign with new sanctions and tariffs on countries trading with Iran.
Direct Kinetic Action: Shifting from threats to active bombardment of over 7,000 targets to "remove the threat" entirely.

dogtail, perhaps if you get to know some of us MAGA types, you will see how far from reality your definitions have taken you. And using a term in a way you must constantly explain seems unhelpful.

I watched Bill Buckley interview whatsiname the black radical who wrote SOUL ON ICE, after he had fled the US and was wined and dined in Cuba and Algeria and then Russia. He said there was LESS racism i America, because those three Communist countries decreed that there was NO racism, when of course there was and is and suggesting so was considered counter-revolutionary and sabotage and could get you in the gulag. In the US, he said, we are allowed to TALK about it.

@ Legion 4

I follow what you're laying out, and I can see how that pathway could develop given enough pressure on the system.

My hesitation is that it seems to rely on several contingencies—internal fracture within the regime, alignment of local forces, and a relatively controlled transition afterward. Each of those is possible, but none are fully controllable from the outside.

That's really the distinction I've been trying to make. A strategy, at least as I think of it, defines an end state and a mechanism that connects current actions to that outcome with some degree of reliability.

What you're describing feels more like a scenario that could emerge if things break in a certain direction, rather than something that is being directly produced by the current set of operations.

Maybe another way to frame it—would you see this as the intended outcome, or as one possible outcome among several depending on how things unfold?

From some digging a few days back, only a short snippet of it. Where deterrent was the strategy, or still is.

As you can see, Israel's is "rinse and repeat".

16 sites

" "Deterrence" as an exclusive strategy is most famously associated with the Cold War, where the primary goal was to prevent a "hot" war between superpowers through the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). 
While deterrence is typically a tool to preventwar, several historical instances and modern doctrines treat it as the central or "only" strategic purpose of maintaining certain military capabilities: 

1. The Cold War (1947–1991)
This is the definitive example of a conflict where the primary (and arguably only) strategy for direct engagement was deterrence.
* The Goal: To make the cost of a direct attack so high that neither side would ever initiate it.
* Nuclear Weapons: Strategists like Bernard Brodie famously stated that while the chief purpose of military establishments had been to win wars, it must now be to avert them.
* Result: While "proxy wars" occurred (e.g., Korea, Vietnam), a direct full-scale war between the US and USSR was successfully deterred for over 40 years. 
*
* en.wikipedia.org
 +3

2. Modern Israeli Defense (The "Mowing the Grass" Strategy)
Israel has frequently engaged in conflicts (such as various operations in Gaza like Operation Pillar of Defense) where the intended outcome is not total victory or regime change, but rather "restoring deterrence". 

warontherocks.com
 +1
* The Concept: Periodic military force is used to degrade an opponent's capabilities and raise the "cost" of aggression, hoping to secure long periods of quiet. 
*
* mwi.westpoint.edu
 +2"

docmc

It's been awhile since i studied strategery, but somewhere along the line I picked up this idea that the FIRST thing you want to do is eliminate the enemy's "field forces" which then allows you to impose your peace terms upon him. Seems to me that is what Pete Hegseth is doing, and quite successfully.

That model assumes you can actually eliminate field forces and then impose terms. It's not clear either condition is being met here. Degrading capability isn't the same as disarming a state, and without a defined political end state, military action doesn't resolve the problem—it just shifts it.

Some more Iranian leaders leave Iran… permanently overnight. ☠️

IN:
"4 hours ago
Israel says it killed IRGC spokesperson in airstrike

The Israeli military said it killed Revolutionary Guards spokesperson Ali Mohammad Naini in an overnight airstrike, following intelligence gathered by its Military Intelligence Directorate.

"Naini disseminated the regime's terrorist propaganda to its proxies across the Middle East," the military said, describing him as a central figure in messaging tied to attacks against Israel. Iranian state media had earlier reported his death.

4 hours ago
IRGC aerospace commander killed in strikes, media say

Mehdi Qureishi, a commander in the Revolutionary Guards' aerospace force, was killed in recent Israeli and US strikes in Isfahan, Iranian media reported on Friday.

His body was buried in a funeral procession in Isfahan.

6 hours ago
Basij deputy commander confirmed dead

Esmail Ahmadi, a senior intelligence official in Iran's Basij and deputy to its commander, has been confirmed dead.

Guards-linked Tasnim website described Ahmadi as "one of the most important pillars of the Basij organization" who held key security responsibilities."

I don't normally list these, as there are way to many.

But 1. Ones like this daily. I think Israel doing most of these. While U.S. hits military positions.

Lots of information on internal things happening in Iran the last few days, if one wants to get out of normal news sources and do some investigative work on the web. Time consuming.

This on the other hand, was just reading 1 site.

IN

"13 Basij members killed in Tabriz checkpoint attack
13 Basij members were killed and 18 others wounded in an attack on a checkpoint in Tabriz on Thursday evening, the Revolutionary Guards in East Azarbaijan province said.

Officials said the death toll could rise following the attack in the city's Qaramalek area."

A few more "scorpions to the breast" posts

"Motive still unclear?" 😳😏

3 hours ago
Dutch minister says shooting victim had criticized Iran

"A police employee in the Netherlands who was shot in Schoonhoven Thursday had spoken out against the Islamic Republic, Justice Minister David van Weel said, adding authorities are examining whether the motive is linked.

"But the fact that he is Iranian, that he spoke out against the regime, is something we must, of course, take seriously," van Weel said. The 36-year-old IT specialist was seriously injured in the early morning shooting, with the motive still unclear."

…

2 hours ago:

"UK arrests two suspected Iranian spies near submarine base – The Sun

Two suspected Iranian spies were arrested after attempting to enter a British nuclear submarine base in Scotland on Thursday, The Sun newspaper reported.

The Friday report said the individuals were detained before gaining access to the facility, with authorities investigating the incident."

@Parzival

My concern at this point is that these nutcases might blow up their own oil and production facilities/fields out of spite. And under that concern, it might actually be valid to get some boots on the ground to protect these facilities from the Iranian hardliners and preserve them for the world and the people of Iran. I do think this would be a temporary situation— the ability of the hardliners to pull off such a thing is limited, and becoming more limited each day.

That's a legitimate concern, and I think you're right that "scorched earth" behavior is a real risk in any conflict where a regime feels cornered.

Where I would push back is on the implication that this leads cleanly to a solution like "temporary boots on the ground." Securing dispersed oil infrastructure inside a large, hostile country isn't a limited or self-contained task—it's the beginning of a much larger commitment, both militarily and politically.

It also assumes that intervention would stabilize the situation rather than accelerate exactly the kind of destructive behavior you're worried about. Regimes under existential pressure don't always act to preserve assets—they sometimes deny them.

On China, I agree their interests likely align with keeping production intact. But that cuts both ways—it suggests there are major powers with incentives to avoid total collapse, which complicates the idea that escalation automatically produces a controlled outcome.

TMP link

Yeah. This means you!

@Parzival

By the way, the first rule of any military strategy is to not let the enemy know what that strategy is. Ever.

So guess what— NO President or Sec of War or Sec of State or anyone else connected to the military who actually knows what the strategy is, is EVER going to tell the media what that strategy is. EVER. In fact, their best choice is to LIE to the media, or to appear not to have the actual strategy they do have.

File that under "Duh."

How is it that this site, which supposedly features people who engage in simulated military battles, apparently has some who don't know the most basic rule of military action: "Never let them see you coming."

You're mixing up two completely different levels of war.

Sun Tzu's "deception" principle applies to plans and execution—timing, direction of attack, strength, targets. Of course you don't tell the enemy how you're going to fight. That's basic.

But strategy (your objective and your end state) is often deliberately made public, and historically it almost always is in major wars. In WWII, the Allies openly declared "unconditional surrender." Germany and Japan knew exactly what the goal was. What they didn't know was when and where the Allies would strike, how D-Day would unfold, or how deception operations like Fortitude were structured.

Those are different categories:

Strategy (the "why" and "what") = often public but when kept secret it's for Political ambiguity, not operational deception

Operations/tactics (the "how") = Best kept secret

If you hide everything, you can't coordinate allies, can't deter adversaries, and can't sustain domestic support. War is political—people have to know what the objective is.

So no, "never reveal strategy" isn't a real rule.

The real rule is:
1. Never reveal your plans.
2. But your purpose is often stated on purpose.

That's not a contradiction; that's how wars are actually run.

John so we know that they don't read the
links. You are saying they don't read posts either (I agree). So most just here to vent their anti US and anti Trump vitriol.

Thanks for the confirmation. Although we have pretty much all known it. 🙂

Yes both sides pretty much made up which side they were on, on day one.

So is this where the one talking for Joe fled to, when he lost his job? 🤨

IN:

"2 hours ago
No video again: Mojtaba Khamenei's absence continues in Nowruz message

No video again: Mojtaba Khamenei's absence continues in Nowruz message
A written Nowruz message attributed to Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei was released on Friday without any video or audio, as his continued absence fuels questions about his condition and whereabouts.

The message urged domestic media to "seriously refrain from highlighting weaknesses," emphasizing the need to maintain internal cohesion.

It also said that Iranian armed forces and the so-called "resistance" front were not involved in recent attacks on Turkey and Oman.

"The attacks carried out in Turkey and Oman — both of which have good relations with Iran — were in no way conducted by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic or other forces of the Resistance Front," the message reads.

He said this is a ploy by the "Zionist enemy," using false-flag tactics to create division between the Islamic Republic and its neighbors, and that it may also occur in some other countries.

In another part of the message, Khamenei described Iran's January protests a "coup," praising the Islamic Republic's supporters for suppressing "

A gentle and peace loving people. Notice, "worldwide"
"Yes we are equal opportunity for all Infidels. They are all equal in our eyes."

"Iran's top military spokesman warned Friday that "parks, recreational areas and tourist destinations" worldwide won't be safe for Tehran's enemies.

Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi made the threat as Iran continues to be hit by American and Israeli airstrikes. It renewed concerns that Iran may revert to using militant attacks beyond the Middle East as a pressure tactic in the war."

Yeah, that's the way to get your allies onside.

An alliance is a two-way street, supposed to be mutually beneficial. If the US is doing all the heavy work and the "allies" back off and don't help… what alliance do we have? When Denmark and the EU is ready to dispatch troops and chest-beat over Trump trolling them on Greenland but will not send even a single boot on the ground to Ukraine… what are they?

Anyays -- this was an alliance test by Trump, y'all failed. I'm not saying this is gonna kill NATO, but Trump has made it very very very very very clear that he wants Europe to defend Europe so the US can address the threat of China.

He wants you to spend more on your defense. Expand your armies. Develop more durable supply chains so you're not dependent on China and sufficient logistics to get around without US planes. He wants you to STOP BUYING ENERGY FROM RUSSIA if they are a real threat to you, and to stop delaying the much needed peace deal to end the Ukraine War, and ideally have conditions to re-engage Russia and pull them out of China's sphere.

AND he wants European governments to reverse their slide into soft tyranny, to stop destroying Free Speech and citizen participation. He also wants you to STOP the unending immigration flows from countries with totally incompatible and even hostile cultures.

In short he wants MEGA -- Make Europe Great Again. And you hate him for it…

When Denmark and the EU is ready to dispatch troops and chest-beat over Trump trolling them on Greenland but will not send even a single boot on the ground to Ukraine… what are they?

Uh, last time I checked, the US didn't have any boots on the ground in Ukraine either.
Did I miss something? 🤔
Good thing we don't, since vacillating mood swings from … higher authority… would have them entering and leaving and entering a leaving and… Not getting anything accomplished either way.

So guess what— NO President or Sec of War or Sec of State or anyone else connected to the military who actually knows what the strategy is, is EVER going to tell the media what that strategy is. EVER. In fact, their best choice is to LIE to the media, or to appear not to have the actual strategy they do have.

Bingo !!! That has been my experience …

Sun Tzu's "deception" principle applies to plans and execution—timing, direction of attack, strength, targets. Of course you don't tell the enemy how you're going to fight. That's basic.

Bingo !!! Again !!!

The US's and Israel's strategy for regime change/reform in Iran is glaringly obvious and will eventually prove effective. Likely by mid to late April, Iran will be led by somebody amenable to US interests.

Yes that entire post is worth reading …

Uh, last time I checked, the US didn't have any boots on the ground in Ukraine either.

If there were … it would be beyond Top Secret. And if you don't have the need to know … you won't … The same could be said in Iran currently. Of course the Mossad and their tech is everywhere. They share …

but ICE looked like the SA to me.

Well when having to deal with 20-25 million illegal aliens mixed with rapists, murderers, drug dealers, gangbangers, pedophiles and a litany of out unsavory criminals, etc. ICE and CBP can't go in unprepared, the fact they show up loaded for bear should be enough to intimidate the criminals. But some want to fight, run, etc. Instead of putting up no resistance.

These Federal LEOs have the sanction to do this job. To protect US citizens. If one thinks they are e.g. SA, SS, etc. that is a stretch. I watch all the videos, etc. in the media. Yes sometimes things get a little rough … Sometimes things get confusing … Sometimes there are mistakes and accidents. But those are rare.

Regardless … they are going after criminals, if these LEOs have to they will do what it takes to protect themselves, their fellow officers, and citizens. Illegal aliens don't have the same rights as US citizens.

But again, Jews are not the target.

Yes, but the Jews are targeted by many groups in the US. They are the #1 victims of Hate Crimes according to the FBI, etc. If Black Americans were treated the same way it would not be tolerated.

I follow what you're laying out, and I can see how that pathway could develop given enough pressure on the system.

That appears to be part of the plan.

My hesitation is that it seems to rely on several contingencies—internal fracture within the regime, alignment of local forces, and a relatively controlled transition afterward. Each of those is possible, but none are fully controllable from the outside.

Yes like US/Pilipino insurgency in the P.I. in WWII. Or any other insurgency it is generally not easy. Has many working parts, is dependent on many events to occur, etc., etc. Both the IDF/Mossad know this. And probably more …

That's really the distinction I've been trying to make. A strategy, at least as I think of it, defines an end state and a mechanism that connects current actions to that outcome with some degree of reliability.

As I said, if this is overall strategy, and I think at least it is most likely a part of it. I think as the islamist leaders, IRGC, Basji etc. are being attrited. There will be a point like the Germans in Berlin or the IJFs in Manilla they will no longer be able to pose any effective threat. Many will be dead, many will run, some will defect, etc., etc.

These islamist fanatics who are trying to start the end times. Using nukes to be their big stick(s). Initiating the Apocalypse, their 12 Imams or whatever they are called. Will rise from the dead, defeat the infidels and usher in a worldwide islamist caliphate. Not my words … theirs … And too, too many Shias in Iran, Iraq, etc. are motivated by these lunatic dogma/beliefs. It is a death cult. They are fanatic radicals. Living in the 15th Century etc.

With this end state in mind. The removal of them from the planet has to be a primary mission. And again, they want nukes.

So I think the classified strategy to do stop this all from happening, etc. Again, based on this plan for starting an Apocalypse. Now we unless some are delusional, etc. are pretty sure this is not doing happen. It is more myth, legend, etc. But in their evil confused mines, they want to get nukes to get this all to happen.

Again there is a strategy, an OPLAN, etc. in place being executed to stop this religious inspired madness … But we don't know what that is for all the reasons we have been talking about.

What you're describing feels more like a scenario that could emerge if things break in a certain direction, rather than something that is being directly produced by the current set of operations.

I don't think so, I don't see it that way. I see what some of us have outlined here is at least a part of the plan, the strategy.

Maybe another way to frame it—would you see this as the intended outcome, or as one possible outcome among several depending on how things unfold?

that is basically the way I and others see it. The Pentagon, etc. know what they want to be. They know what has to be done. They are taking the steps to get there. Having taken a number of contingencies, events, etc. in their planning to make the end game occur.

Is it possible that something unforeseen happens that was not taken into consideration? Yes that is always a possibility in most operations. You plan to mitigate such known or anticipated events as much as possible. And a well-trained, motivated and lead military can effectively deal with these unexpected events, etc. as well…

We don't know a lot for things with certainty. The Pentagon knows more that we do. And more than the enemy does.

This won't be easy to get the end game desired. But I am confident that many, that likely events that can happen have been considered. If for nothing else, my study or history and my past vocation.

If there were … it would be beyond Top Secret. And if you don't have the need to know … you won't …

What???
And here I thought American policy was discussed, formulated, decided and implemented on TMP!
I am shocked. SHOCKED!

Yes, most are peaceful. But it only takes one radicalized fundamentalist. In this case seems to be more than one. And assimilation into the culture and laws of the new country that has "welcomed" them, seems to be a problem everywhere.

The all to familiar call of: " Allahu Akbar!"

"On March 20, 2026, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was heckled and booed by a group of protesters at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney during Eid al-Fitr prayers. The protesters shouted "genocide supporters," "shame," and "get out" to voice their anger over the Australian government's position on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
ndtv.com
ndtv.com
+2
Key Details of the Incident:
The Event: Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke attended the mosque to mark the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.
The Disruption: About 15 minutes into the proceedings, a small group of protestors disrupted the event, with some shouting "Allahu Akbar" after calling the officials "genocide supporters".
The Reaction: While the majority of the event was peaceful, the vocal protest led to security stepping in, with at least one person tackled and others removed.
Departure: Albanese and Burke left the mosque shortly after the disruption, followed by protestors yelling "Shame on you".
Context: The incident reflects ongoing anger within sections of the Muslim community regarding the Australian government's response to the Gaza war.
Aftermath: Despite the tense confrontation, the Lebanese Muslim Association, which operates the mosque, defended hosting the Prime Minister, emphasizing the need for direct dialogue with government leaders. Prime Minister Albanese described the overall visit as "incredibly positive" and the disruption as coming from a small number of people.
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk

Also

Subject: Albanese confronted by protesters yelling ‘Allahu Akbar' during mosque visit | Sky News Australia


link

link

So Vlad offers to put off sharing… stuff … with Iran, if WE cut off Ukraine.
Considering how mercurial our support for Ukraine is, and how trustworthy Vlad is, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be from the Onion. If it were, I might find it more credible.

@docmcb

from Sean King: The US's and Israel's strategy for regime change/reform in Iran is glaringly obvious and will eventually prove effective. Likely by mid to late April, Iran will be led by somebody amenable to US interests. Here's how that will happen…

Regime change/reform is coming. Soon. I've said all along that I expected it to happen within 60 days of the initial hostilities. That would be the end of April. But it may well happen before then.

I'm not familiar with Sean King as a source on military or intelligence planning. If this is being presented as "glaringly obvious," I'd expect it to come from either official statements or analysts with a background in strategy rather than commentary.

More importantly, even taking that outline at face value, it still reads as a sequence of actions and assumptions rather than a demonstrated pathway to a stable outcome. That's the part I've been trying to clarify.

Uh, last time I checked, the US didn't have any boots on the ground in Ukraine either.
Did I miss something?

What is it our European allies keep telling us about helping the US in Iran? Let me see… oh yeah, "it's not our war and we feel no need to get involved" in various different ways.

Sound advice! Let's shift the Ukraine $$ to a war that is our war, and let Europe deal with Europe's war!

@SB

There's a war in the Ukraine?? The He#l you say! 🤨

The media seems to have forgotten. Actually most, but not all, of the "Ukraine first and the rest of Europe next! 😱" TMPers seem to have forgotten too. The Ukrainian war was the end of all. Now they seem to be obsessed with only a war far from their shores.

But I think we all know why. 😏

@35thOVI

Incavert

Although again others have chimed in with answers. I'll say, much of what they wanted to deter, have been well stated by the department of war. Again I and others have already posted in here what those are. I am not going to keep rehashing them over and over.

Please don't come back with: "you should be able to easily state it then".

That has become a redundant circle back tactic.

IMO you keep demanding something very very specific, simply in the hopes to say when this ends: "See he failed!!".

I'm not asking you to restate anything, and I'm not trying to set up a "gotcha." I'm not even getting into legality or broader policy questions—I'm taking the campaign as described at face value.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a single, clearly stated set of objectives that defines what condition would constitute success or deterrence being achieved.

Now, taking the objectives as already stated—nuclear capability, missiles, naval forces, and proxy networks—those are all clear as targets.

My point is about structure, not repetition: those describe what is being acted on, but they don't define what condition would indicate that deterrence has been achieved or that the campaign has reached a stable end state.

That's not a request for more detail—it's an observation about how the objectives are framed.

What I'm seeing in this discussion—and, again, I may be missing something—is that we're mixing different levels of planning and treating them as if they're the same thing.

1. Lists of targets / activities:
• Degrading missile capabilities
• Destroying naval assets
• Targeting IRGC / Basij
• Disrupting nuclear pathways

These are operational objectives—they describe what is being acted on.

2. General policy frameworks
• "Maximum pressure"
• "Peace through strength"
• "Deterrence"

These are strategic concepts or justifications—they explain why action is being taken.

3. Implied outcomes (not clearly defined.)

• Regime weakened
• Threat reduced
• Deterrence restored

These are aspirational outcomes, but they are not tied to measurable conditions.

Where I think the gap is:

I haven't seen a single, clearly articulated set of objectives that defines:
• What specific behavior is being deterred
• What observable condition would indicate success
• What actually ends the campaign

That's not a request for classified details or operational disclosure—it's the distinction between ongoing action and a defined strategic end state. Right now, what's been described reads as a set of actions and pressures, not a fully articulated framework for how those actions translate into a stable outcome. If that framework has been clearly stated somewhere, I'm open to being pointed to it. If you don't want to point it out, I understand but please do not tell me you cannot be bothered or I am just asking endlessly for what has not been asserted.

@goibinu

@Inca.

I've said it before, but you're far too intelligent to be wasting your time here. Rational, logical argument such as yours is always going to be ignored by the screeching bellicose hordes, but I admire your tenacity.

Heh, it's just a bunch of good ole boys blowing off steam. Everyone here is perfectly capable of engaging the core issues—they just don't always want to deal with where the answers lead.

And in fairness, part of the appeal of a forum like this is exactly that—a good rant now and then.

Incavart

I don't think myself and the others will ever give the answer you seem to be seeking. I think we all believe we have. But obviously not.

As that great man once said:

"what we've got here, is a failure to communicate"

Maybe someone else can come up with a better way of explaining it. We can hope.

For all those unhappy about no perceived plan from the current administration for Iran.

Where were you prior to 2024? 🤨

You want a campaign with no ultimate plan. A campaign that has cost much more than the 13 current lives of Iran. So many more lives of our citizens, from the invaders. Cost all of us trillions of taxpayer dollars. Dollars and deaths that are accruing daily still to this very day. A "forever campaign", that even though those gates are closed (thanks Donald), will continue costing us both $ and lives and worse beyond many of our lives.

I give you the Biden Administrations campaign to destroy our borders.

What was the administrations plan when they opened the floodgates of our borders? What was their strategy expressed publicly to the American people?

What was their ultimate plan for assimilation of these Millions of illegals, who were from all over the world, every religion, every possible language and every culture?

What was the plan for employing, housing, feeding and schooling these millions of illegals and how to pay for it?

What was the ultimate strategy to handle the crime of those brought in, especially the millions of unvetted?

We know many of the Tactics they used to do it:

"Upon taking office in January 2021, President Biden issued several executive orders that dismantled signature Trump-era restrictions: 
* Halted Border Wall Construction: He terminated the national emergency declaration used to fund the wall and paused all construction projects.
* Ended "Remain in Mexico": The administration suspended and eventually ended the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which had required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their U.S. court dates.
* Narrowed ICE Priorities: New guidelines restricted ICE from arresting and deporting individuals unless they were considered threats to national security or public safety.
* 100-Day Deportation Pause: Biden initially ordered a 100-day pause on most deportations, though this was later blocked by a federal judge. 
*
* forumtogether.org
 

2. Implementation of "Legal Pathways"

The administration campaigned on creating a "fair and humane" system by emphasizing legal processing over physical barriers:

* CBP One App: Launched in 2023, this app allows migrants to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry. Over 800,000 people used it to enter the country legally by late 2024.

* Humanitarian Parole Programs: Programs were established to allow up to 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to fly into the U.S. if they had a financial sponsor"

The tactic of overwhelming the border patrol and ICE and force them from their real jobs and instead into processing illegals at our border. At least the ones who simply avoided them completely.

Then of course the ultimate tactic: placing the most incompetent member of a group of many incompetents as…. "Border Czar". 😣

@Legion 4

I think we've probably reached the point where we're looking at the same facts but weighting them differently.

I don't doubt there's planning behind it, and I agree the pathway described is possible. My hesitation is simply that what's been outlined still depends on variables that aren't fully controllable, so I tend to see it as one potential outcome rather than a reliably defined end state.

But I take your point on how you're viewing it.

It seems at least possible that the lack of a clearly defined end state isn't primarily about OPSEC, but about preserving flexibility at the policy level.

A tightly defined objective creates a benchmark for success or failure. Keeping it more open-ended allows decision-makers to adapt to changing conditions without being locked into a specific outcome or timeline.

That may be intentional—but it also makes it harder, from the outside, to distinguish between a defined strategy and an evolving set of operations.

I'm glad to see that American Foreign Policy has now embraced assassination.
Previously, we would simply get a tame Federal Court to indict a foreign leader, and simply go in and kidnap him. (Panama, Venezuela…)
Now, since "boots on the ground" is do controversial (and could lead to high administration officials trying to look sad at funerals), we have hit upon the magical Stealth Assassination Program. Or SAP.
It's a lot less messy, right?
I expect the usual crowd to tell me that "they deserve it". Of course they are right! A Very High Government Official has "determined" that they deserve to be blown away, along with everyone else in the building! That's good enough for me!

No need to get Congress involved. They're too busy doing insider trading, building their portfolios, to actually give a damn about their actual Constitutional responsibilities.

Just a simple thought. It works both ways. God forbid it should happen here. Just look at the line of succession. 😱
So nobody should accuse me of wanting… bad things. Just a thought and warning that The Enemy may have similar intentions. 🙄

Back to the good days of a rogue CIA, but now we're not even bothering with the farce of "plausible deniability".