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

Incavart did you ignore the rest?

I gave you not my beliefs, I gave you transcripts and information from other sources.

So I just did a web search via AI. Wars that started with no clear objectives, but ended in success. "Success" was a key criteria in the Iran conflict.

Notice the very first one returned.

I stand by what I said.

Finding a war that starts with no clear objective but ends in a resounding success is rare, as "success" is usually measured against an original goal. However, these examples fit the bill—they started as accidents, vague skirmishes, or defensive panics and ended with massive, unintended victories.

1. The Mexican-American War (1846–1848)
* The Vague Start: It began over a murky border dispute in Texas ("American blood on American soil"). President Polk's initial instructions to the military were vague, mostly involving poking at the border to see what would happen.
* The "Accidental" Success: The U.S. won so decisively that they didn't just settle the border; they seized California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of four other states. It transformed the U.S. into a transcontinental power—a scale of success far beyond the original "border skirmish" intent.

2. The War of Jenkins' Ear (1739–1748)
* The Vague Start: Britain went to war with Spain because a Spanish coast guard allegedly cut off the ear of a British merchant captain named Robert Jenkins. The "objective" was essentially national outrage and vague notions of "trading rights."
* The Success: While the war itself was a messy stalemate, it merged into the larger War of the Austrian Succession. Britain emerged with a vastly strengthened Royal Navy and undisputed dominance over Atlantic trade routes, effectively laying the groundwork for the British Empire's maritime supremacy.

3. The Six-Day War (1967)
* The Vague Start: This began as a desperate, reactive "pre-emptive strike" to avoid being wiped out by surrounding armies. There was no grand plan to conquer territory; the objective was simply survival and "neutralizing the threat."
* The Massive Success: In just six days, Israel tripled the size of its territory, capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Old City of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. What started as a panicked defense ended in one of the most lopsided territorial expansions in modern history.

4. The Spanish-American War (1898)
* The Vague Start: Triggered by the explosion of the USS Maine and a general "vibe" of supporting Cuban independence. The U.S. entered the war without a clear plan for what to do with Spain's other colonies.
* The Success: In just ten weeks, the U.S. essentially ended the Spanish Empire. By the time the smoke cleared, the U.S. had unintentionally become a global colonial power, acquiring Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

5. The First Crusade (1095–1099)
* The Vague Start: It began as a chaotic "armed pilgrimage" called by Pope Urban II. The goals were a mix of "helping the Byzantines" and "liberating Jerusalem," but there was no unified military command, no supply chain, and no clear political endgame.
* The Success: Despite the total lack of professional organization, the Crusaders actually captured Jerusalem and established four "Crusader States" in the Levant that lasted for centuries. By the standards of the time, it was a miraculous and total strategic success.

"Rapid Response 47

@RapidResponse47
"What exactly are you looking for in these talks, Mr. President?"

@POTUS
: "We want to see no nuclear bomb, no nuclear weapon — not even close to it — low key on the missiles, we want to see peace in the Middle East. We want the nuclear dust… I think we're going to get that."

…

Rapid Response 47

@RapidResponse47
.
@POTUS
: "We're dealing with the man who, I believe, is the most respected and the 'leader.' It's a little tough — we've wiped out everybody."

REPORTER: "Is that the Supreme Leader?"

@POTUS
: "No."
"

Summary of today

Iran International:

"US President Donald Trump said on Monday he believed talks with Iran could lead to a deal that ensures long-term peace for Israel, while signaling uncertainty over the whereabouts of Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Trump told reporters that Israel would likely support any agreement reached with Tehran, adding that recent contacts with Israeli officials had been positive.

"I think Israel will be very happy with what we have," Trump said. "This will be peace for Israel – long-term peace, guaranteed peace if this happens."

He said Iran had initiated contact and showed willingness to negotiate, though he stressed any deal must prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Trump says Iran must give up nuclear ambitions

Trump said the central condition of any agreement would be that Iran abandon its nuclear program.

"They're not going to have nuclear weapons anymore. They're agreeing to that," he said.

He added that if a deal is reached, the United States would take control of Iran's enriched uranium. "We'll go down and we'll take it ourselves," he said.

Trump also said he believed recent US military strikes had significantly set back Iran's nuclear capabilities, warning that without such action Tehran could have developed a weapon within weeks.

"If we didn't hit them … they would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks to a month," he said.

Trump signals openness to oil flows despite sanctions questions

The president said he supported allowing Iranian oil already at sea to enter global markets, arguing that increasing supply would help stabilize the system.

"I just want to have as much oil in the system as possible," Trump said, adding it was unclear how much revenue Iran would ultimately receive.

"Any small amount of money that Iran gets is not going to have any difference in this war," he said.

Trump says Mojtaba Khamenei ‘unavailable'

Trump said Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Iran's supreme leader, was "unavailable," adding that his status was unclear.

"Khamenei's son is unavailable. Nobody knows what happened to him," Trump said. "Something is going on with him."

He said he did not view Mojtaba Khamenei as the country's main leader but noted that several Iranian leadership groups had been targeted.

Trump points to possible political change in Iran

Trump suggested that a form of political transition could emerge in Iran, saying many senior figures had been removed.

"There's automatically a regime change," he said, while adding that the United States was in contact with individuals he described as "reasonable" and "respected."

He also said oil prices could fall sharply if an agreement is reached.

"The price of oil will drop like a rock as soon as a deal is done," Trump said.

Trump says deal is possible but not guaranteed

Trump said negotiations were ongoing and expressed cautious optimism about the outcome.

"We have a very serious chance of making a deal," he said. "I think if I were a betting man, I'd bet for it. But again, I'm not guaranteeing anything."
"

Good view of shock waves

Subject: OSINTtechnical on X: "Footage of US/Israeli guided bombs slamming into Iran's Dezful airbase earlier today. t.co/bsExQvz4h4 / X


link

Dogtail

You all would portray this as a defeat no matter what happens.

If he bombed the nuclear plants you would all have cows for endangering the world. Not bomb, he "taco'ed".

War continues it is a "forever war" with no objectives. It ends shortly, he was forced to back down.. "Taco'ed" again. 🙄

No matter what he does, it will be portrayed as a failure by the TDSers. Hate is all you have and it is rooted too deeply.

But if you're overseas, it does not matter. You can't vote here. Thank god.

For those here, they did not vote for him anyway.

It amazes me how whatever the U.S. does, we automatically become the focal point of the world's attention. Ukraine forgotten, pretty much everything else forgotten. Trump dominants the world leaders every thoughts as well obviously of their citizens. Guess it proves we ARE #1 still. 📣

Trump lives freely in all your heads. 😂

@35thOVI

You can't define "success" without an objective—otherwise it's just hindsight.

And your examples don't hold up anyway—the First Crusade had a clear objective (Jerusalem), even if execution was chaotic.

If that's the standard, we're now comparing modern strategy to medieval campaigns.

What's the actual end condition here?

And all those other administration sound bites you posted, such as "Peace," "no nukes," and "we'll see how talks go" aren't defined outcomes.

What exact condition ends this?

Your opinion vs the web and actual information. Not my opinion.

Bluntly like Dogtail, you are looking for a reason to portray Iran as a loss.

Even if it was… not something that can be determined for multiple years. Not that it will stop the haters and MSM from doing so. 😏

Now the open borders of Biden, determining it was a disaster and it only gets worse by the day..,, 😏

Costing thousands of lives of actual US citizens. Costing much more monetarily than the Iran conflict will.

For me, much more of a concern than anything Trump has done to this point with much more effect on my life and my monetary well-being.

No end game with that.

As I said, his successes are ignored.

Think how much better Chicago, LA, Minneapolis or other blue cities would be today, if they had not fought the deployment of NG to reduce crime.

For example DC is now or

Memphis

As of March 2026, crime in Memphis has reportedly reached a 25-year low in several major categories following the implementation of the Memphis Safe Task Force and the deployment of the National Guard.
The Memphis Police Department
The Memphis Police Department

President Trump signed a memorandum in September 2025 to send federal forces and National Guard troops to Memphis to combat violent crime. While local officials noted that crime rates had already begun to trend downward earlier in 2025 due to city-led initiatives, they confirmed a sharper decline in the fourth quarter of 2025.
PBS

Key Crime Statistics (2025 Year-End Data)
City data and official police reports show major reductions compared to 2023 and 2024:

Overall Crime: Down 41% compared to 2023.
Murders: Decreased by 47% since 2023, with fewer than 200 homicides recorded in 2025 for the first time since 2019.
Carjackings: Dropped by 48%.
Aggravated Assaults: Down 22%."

That young 18 year old college student in Chicago, gunned down by the illegal (released multiple times by sanctuary cities during the Biden illegal flood), would still be breathing today. Her killer back in Venezuela.

@35thOVI

That's a change of topic, not an answer.

What ends this?

This ends when Trump declares that we won. Boy did we show those Iranians who's boss. Were objectives achieved? Did we do what we set out to do? Won't really matter. We just won.

"What ends this?"

Back to this again?

Obviously a deal the President decides is in the best interest of the U.S.

Do I trust him, Rubio, Vance and the rest? Obviously.

Do you, Grattan and about 8 or 10 more on TMP, mostly foreign (who have absolutely no say in our elections anyway) trust them. No, based on this thread and probably any ultramodern thread in which he is cursed and vilified daily here. In many cases, including the U.S.

I see the usual group opened a new one today. (He lives so freely in their heads).

I see it as a victory now. For me it was a victory on day one when the Ayatollah and his buddies found it is really, really hot in paradise. 😈

It was a victory every time another Iranian ship sank, Iranian plane blew up, Guard position blew up or missile launcher exploded.

Every time another Iranian leader went to He##.

Even if we have to go back another time and hit them once again, it will be a victory for me. I'll back it then too.

This has been a long, long time coming for me, ever since they took over our embassy and Carter bent over and touched his toes. It is also personal for me.
I am sure it's personal for anyone who lost someone directly to the radical regime of Iran, indirectly to them or to their paid and supplied proxies.

Times of Israel says 140 today.

"As of March 2026, the Israeli military (IDF) has provided several varying estimates regarding Iran's remaining ballistic missile launchers following sustained airstrikes:

Remaining Launcher Estimates: Recent reports indicate that Israel believes Iran has between 100 and 200 operational ballistic missile launchers left. Some specific IDF assessments as of mid-March 2026 place the number at approximately 150 to 160.

Destruction Rate: The IDF claims to have destroyed or rendered inoperable approximately 50% to 70% of Iran's original launcher fleet. Specifically, reports from early March stated that over 300 launchers had been taken out of operation since the start of the campaign.

Operational Impact: Despite these losses, officials note that Iran still possesses a significant arsenal of roughly 1,500 to 2,500 ballistic missiles. However, the destruction of launchers has created a "bottleneck," reducing the scale of Iranian barrages from massive 100+ missile swarms to smaller, less coordinated groups of 10 to 30 missiles."

"Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair once angered then-President Barack Obama during a White House meeting on Iran, after he pressed Obama on whether he could tolerate the nation obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to newly released oral history interviews.

"When it came my turn to speak at this meeting," Blair said, "I said, ‘Mr. President, you really just have one decision to make… Are you going to tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon or not?'" He added that rejecting a nuclear Iran would require espionage and military options, while acceptance would mean a strategy to contain and deter Iran.

The exchange, documented in interviews conducted by the University of Virginia's Miller Center and reported by The New York Times, offers a window into internal divisions within the Obama administration as officials debated how to respond to Iran's nuclear program.

Blair said the moment prompted a sharp warning from Obama.

"The president took me aside after that meeting and said, ‘Denny, don't ever put me on the spot like that again,'" he recalled. "I said… ‘Yes, sir, Mr. President. I certainly won't.'" He added, "I was kept out of meetings from that time forward."
"

But maybe he should have expected no less of a man who once described the Muslim call to prayer (the Adhan) as:

"one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The New York Times

OVI +1 +

@35thOVI

"What ends this?"

Back to this again?

Obviously a deal the President decides is in the best interest of the U.S.

If it's already a "victory" and ends whenever it's declared, then there's no defined objective or endpoint—just a decision to call it one.

‘False flag attack': Iran denies claims it fired missiles at Diego Garcia

link

The Man in the Arena: Why Iran's Organized Resistance Is America's Real Ally

link

Armand

Incavart

"If it's already a "victory" and ends whenever it's declared, then there's no defined objective or endpoint—just a decision to call it one."

If it's already a "defeat" and was as soon as it started, than there was no need for a defined objective or endpoint-just a decision to call it one.

Just more echoes of Hakeem.

"House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries predicted that the military operation in Iran would "end in failure" during a CNN interview on March 2, 2026, which was the second day following the initial strikes over the weekend."

But plenty of company in the first few days

"In the immediate aftermath of the initial strikes against Iran starting February 28, 2026, several prominent Democrats and media commentators characterized the conflict as a failure or a "colossal mistake". Their criticisms primarily focused on the lack of a clear objective and the risk of entering another "endless war".
The New York Times

Prominent Democrats
Hakeem Jeffries (House Minority Leader): On March 2, 2026 (Day 2), he predicted the operation would "end in failure". He argued that the administration was "wasting" billions on bombs while failing to address domestic economic issues.

Tim Kaine (Senator, VA): Immediately labeled the strikes a "colossal mistake" and "idiotic action" on the first day of the conflict.

Cory Booker (Senator, NJ): Spearheaded a War Powers Resolution to halt the offensive, characterizing the engagement as a dangerous escalation.

Chris Murphy (Senator, CT): Called the conflict a "deeply unpopular, illegal and immoral war" and criticized the administration for having no clear end goal.

Bernie Sanders (Senator, VT) & Jeff Merkley (Senator, OR): Issued immediate "no war with Iran" declarations, describing the military action as "potentially catastrophic".

Progressive "Squad" Members: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib were among 14 lawmakers who voted against condemning initial retaliatory movements, criticizing the "reckless leadership" leading to war."

As to the media:

"Sentiment Trends: Observers have described the coverage as "relentlessly negative" regarding the administration's strategic achievements. Critics argue that legacy media has favored a narrative emphasizing risk and failure rather than neutral reporting."

Then there was today.

Now whose word did they take about negotiations today? Trumps or Irans leadership (whoever that is)?

"The media has largely focused on paraphrasing Iranian state-linked officials and media (such as Fars and Tasnim) because their denials directly challenged the President's public claims of a "breakthrough"."

😱

"In the current landscape of President Trump's second term (as of March 2026), portrayals of "success" from mainstream media and Democrats are rare and typically nuanced, as both groups tend to focus on the costs, legality, or long-term risks of his actions.
….

Despite these very few acknowledgments, research continues to show that a vast majority of mainstream media coverage (over 90% in some studies) remains negative, focusing on controversies such as the federal government shutdown or the use of ICE agents in airports.
CNN
+2"

@35thOVI

Other people calling something a failure doesn't define an outcome.

You said it's a victory and it ends when it's declared—so what specific condition makes it a victory and ends it?

Incavart

I gave you "my" definition of victory, many posts ago.
It started when the Ayatollah was evaporated and has progressed daily.
That made it a victory for me on day one.

I have posted what the President and DOW has said they want.

I have posted why I believe this is a "Deterrent" war. A war to sit back the ability of Iran to have a finished nuclear bomb mounted on a long range missile. The range of which, has now been proven with the 2 missiles launched at the joint US/British base. The president and department of war were correct about Iran having the range to reach almost every capital in Europe. Which they warned allies about for months prior to this.

Notice "sit back". Not fully stopped. There is always the ability for them to start the program again. Hence "Deterrent". Hence the need to possibly do this again in the future.

I have again said over and over, you cannot believe any negotiations with a radical fundamentalist Islamic regime and the reasons for that.

We may get a peace where they agree with all of our nuclear demands. But as long as the ones in charge are radical fundamentalist Muslims, they will feel they can break them again when they feel they have an advantage.

Hence "deterrence".

I don't speak for the administration. They will announce what they believe they accomplished when it ends. Short of a non-radical fundamentalist Islamic regime taking charge, it will be only a temporary "deterrent" victory.

But maybe they will surprise me.

But not for you, nor those peppering this thread. It was and can be, only a defeat and humiliation of the U.S.

The foreigners here wanting that, we'll just foreigners.

But US citizens wishing the worst, simply out of a blinding and all consuming hate of one man, that is really, really and truly sad. Just shows how deep our divide has become.

The Israelis have their own.

Sometime I think I'll ask of you: What was the ultimate end game and victory conditions, of Biden and the Democrats, "Invasion of the U.S."

What was the initial purpose?
What were the their objectives?
Why would they have allowed it?
What was the Ultimate goal?
Are they still fighting it, by hindering as much as possible the return of the invaders to their home country?
By hindering the troops who fight those who invaded, by not passing ongoing spending bills. (Side effect of which is purposely hurting actual US citizens at airports as of today, all for the safety and security of the invaders 😳).
How does one paint the Invasion as a betterment for those of us here beforehand?

I and others here and elsewhere, believe we have identified the ultimate war goals.

But always interested the perspective of others.

🤔 Did Congress ok that war???

Now let us go back to day 1 of this conflict.

How many of you said Netanyahu led the President by his nose ring into this conflict? He was Netanyahu‘s puppet?

How many of you yesterday and this morning, believed the talking points of the radical fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran, when they said yesterday that "no negotiations" were going on with the U.S.?

…
Iran foreign minister signaled readiness for deal in call with US – Ynet

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi signaled readiness to move toward a deal in a phone call with US envoy Steve Witkoff, Ynet reported.

Citing people familiar with the conversation, the report said Araghchi told US counterparts that Iran had approval from new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to "close the issue quickly" provided Tehran's conditions were met.

It said the call, which also involved the other US envoys Jared Kushner, reflected ongoing contacts despite Iran's public denial of negotiations after US President Donald Trump said he had had productive talks with Iran.

The report said gaps between the sides remained significant and added that Israel was not part of the talks and learned of them through other sources."

Did you read carefully?

"The report said gaps between the sides remained significant and added that Israel was not part of the talks and learned of them through other sources."" 😱

"Iran foreign minister signaled readiness for deal in call with US" 😱

If you have not learned by now, no one leads Donald Trump. Good or bad, that is the way it is.

He is definitely not a placeholder, they can pump full of drugs, lead him to a podium, script a speech and then lead him back to the basement until needed again. 🙄

There will be a lot of reverse engineering of the official explanations. Lifting the oil sanctions on Iran gives them a quick 14 billion windfall, making the Obama return of assets look like peanuts. And "some are saying" (Fox newspeak) that the talks are not substantive right now, as a new Iranian missile strikes TelAviv.

Given the hammering that Obama and Biden took from the right, the "they all hate Trump" defense about tough questions on the war for the administration makes it seem like the right can't take the heat. There are real concerns underneath the heavy partisan rhetoric, as there were with Biden.

We have been burned on the issue of WMDs before. We were told they were obliterated last year. I get its political hyperbole. But it makes the public pronouncements now seem a little shaky. And when you go to war all on your own, without Congress, with half the country not quite getting the PR, you are going to take a lot of heat. Without unity we cannot lead.

Iran's leaders were/are a murderous bunch. Iran the country is in a lot of pain, I imagine. Solutions in the ME are pipe dream, IMO. There are always new bad guys to replace the old ones, it seems. Containment and covert ops helped keep the lid on at least. Now, we could face a brand new bunch of fanatics who find us an existential threat to their existence, motivated by even broader hatred, if that is possible. There may be a cessation of war, but there no peace in sight.

You just defined victory as a personal judgment and a temporary setback that may need to be repeated.

That's not a defined objective—that's just calling it a win each time.

Tort

"Iran's leaders were/are a murderous bunch. Iran the country is in a lot of pain, I imagine. Solutions in the ME are pipe dream, IMO. There are always new bad guys to replace the old ones, it seems. Containment and covert ops helped keep the lid on at least. Now, we could face a brand new bunch of fanatics who find us an existential threat to their existence, motivated by even broader hatred, if that is possible. There may be a cessation of war, but there no peace in sight."

Good to know you acknowledge that Iran deserves what they are receiving and it is long overdue.

That this and all actions against this regime, are containment, (deterrence).

There is no "ultimate victory" in deterrent wars, unless those in charge are ultimately replaced by a better government.

There is never an ultimate peace with radical fundamentalist Islam, as peace is not their ultimate aim. The world can only be Islamic. For those who also follow the 12th Imam belief, it is even worse.

Lastly, who other than Fox, a few very minor networks like Newsmax, and people like me, who hammered Obama or Biden (at least until his debate at the end. And then they had to do it only for survival. 😂).

The stats of negative coverage of both are out there. 30s and 40s at worst for them. Trumps are in the 90s!

You know that is the case. 😉

Incavert,

What is defeat?

Be very specific and back it up with acceptable sources I will acknowledge as acceptable. When I look those sources up, they cannot be perceived as MSM, or anti Trump in past posts.

You cannot use AI, as you have insinuated, it is not acceptable to SB and myself.

Also it cannot just be your opinion.

Not expressed by Democrats nor Rhino generals.

Nor by college professors who we cannot find their voting record and verify they voted for Trump in 2024.

If I think of any other restrictions, I will only use them when I see your response.

Also, I might or might not read your complete posts, especially if they are tooooo long, or I disagree with them after the first few paragraphs.

I sure won't read your links. 🤮

Don't like those restrictions? Well, Welcome to my world on TMP since I joined. I go through it every day on here!

Wonder why I link so much and post such long posts? Because those who disagree demand it of myself and others, but do not of themselves.

Do I seem frustrated? I wonder why?

Want a deterrent war.

The war to stop the expansion of radical fundamentalist Islam since 600, worldwide, seems the perfect example.

Start, stops, defeats, victories. Until they feel they have the advantage to progress and proceed with it, somewhere again.

One could view this conflict as a microcosm of that continuing war. If one takes the time to look into the beliefs of the leadership of Iran, there is actually no doubt that that is true.

You've set conditions where no source is acceptable and said you won't read anything anyway.

And you've defined the conflict as something that continues indefinitely.

That's not a defined objective or end state; it's an open-ended cycle.

35th – you are right. I do know it…kudos for calling me out. I don't think it matters as much as you do, but we can disagree. I do not personalize my disagreements with this admin as much as others. Also some long overdue positive changes have come. But some things are not right. There really is a forgotten middle and I am in it.

I don't watch any tv news now. My habits have changed. I look at AP, sometimes the NYT and NYP together for contrasting views. And I look at links from a certain poster here.:) I look at this war from a more distant perspective though. There is not a lot of naval stuff going on as there would be with CHina, which I focus on. Iran's navy was not much of a threat.

My point is that there is no clear solution to the fanatics in the ME. My opinion…Nearly every one we kill creates a new recruit somewhere – from his family, friends, etc. and the massive CD is really hurting the chances for keeping the hatred from growing. Gaza is a part of this big picture. And Isis was never gone. Afghanistan is a permanent great power trap. Nobody ever "wins".

.

No Incavart.

I'm giving you the same criteria and requirements I've been held to on TMP by many and sundry.

I even left out: "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong!".

Sucks, doesn't it.

As I've stated, those cycles exist. The war with the expansion and domination of radical and fundamentalist Islam, is the classic example.

This conflict is just one of the latest iterations of it.

Let us take the country of Israel and what Iran's regime goals are:

"The stated goal of the current Iranian government regarding Israel's existence is its complete removal, frequently described as the destruction or "wiping out" of the "Zionist regime".

As of March 2026, the official position remains one of non-recognition and delegitimization, viewing the State of Israel as an "illegal" and "impostor" entity. Key aspects of this policy include:

Destruction as a "Strategic Goal": Senior Iranian military officials, including Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, have stated that the destruction of Israel is an achievable goal and that Iran has obtained the capacity to do so.

Delegitimization: Iranian officials and state media consistently refer to Israel using pejorative terms such as the "Zionist regime" or "Occupied Palestine" to deny its status as a sovereign state.

Vows of Victory: Following the outbreak of the 2026 Iran War, Iranian leaders have reiterated their commitment to "complete victory" over Israel and its allies.

Distinction Between Jews and the State: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has previously clarified that calls for "wiping out Israel" refer to the removal of the governing political regime rather than the destruction of the Jewish people."
"

To be replaced with a Christian state? Hindu? another Jewish state? Rightttttttt😏

Of course the old Ayatollah can't say anything anymore, can he?

"From the river to the sea"

A Nice peace loving chant?

The Reconquista and reimposition of another Fundamentalist Muslim state.

The the long war continues…

Wonder How many believe the huge influx of millions of Muslims into Western countries was all a happy coincidence? 🤔

Tort hopefully my last post clarifies a little as to why it is.

I've always seen this as a long war dating back to 600. Never ending. To one or the other collapses and are absorbed.

Between all non-believers and fundamentalist radical Islam.

Somewhat like the Borg that way. 😉

This conflict is just a new battlefield in that war.

Many will disagree. But many agree. I think those who disagree, are blind.

I always love the LBGTQ who protest for Hamas/Palestine or for the Iranian regime.

"In Iran if publicly outed as LBGTQ

Legal and Judicial Consequences
Under Iran's 2013 Islamic Penal Code, consensual same-sex acts are punishable by a range of severe penalties based on the nature of the act and the gender of those involved.
Human

Death Penalty: Specifically applicable for men for "sodomy" (lavat), particularly for the receptive partner or if the active partner is married or non-Muslim. Women can also face the death penalty upon their fourth conviction for same-sex acts.

Corporal Punishment: Many same-sex acts, including non-penetrative intimacy like "kissing or touching as a result of lust," are punishable by 31 to 74 lashes. Women engaged in same-sex intercourse typically face 100 lashes.

Specious Charges: Activists and LGBTQ individuals are often prosecuted under broad, vague charges like "corruption on earth," "human trafficking," or "collusion against national security" as a pretext for their sexual orientation or advocacy.

State Surveillance and Raids: Security forces reportedly monitor online activity to identify and arrest suspected LGBTQ individuals and have been known to raid private parties and gatherings to make mass arrests. "

Then we have the women out there joining them. Yes! radical fundamentalist, Islamic governments give their women lots and lots of freedoms. 😂

But both groups have been indoctrinated well in hate for their evil colonialist oppressor home countries. Evil Western white and Jew of course. Good non white poor oppressed victims. 🙄

Tort I'll add.

If I think Trump is wrong about anything, it is be naïve enough to believe that any radical fundamentalist Islamic government can be trusted to keep any agreements they make in negotiations.

It is not the nature of the beast and another reason you will probably have to do this again.

Boy did we show those Iranians who's boss. Were objectives achieved? Did we do what we set out to do? Won't really matter. We just won.

Yep, pretty much how it works. Trump has been consistent about the US' goals (deterrent war), which are not the same as Israel's goals (regime change).

Trump has stated numerous times that the goal of the military campaign is to destroy every bit of Iran's nuclear program that we can, and to destroy its power projection capability so it no longer poses a serious threat. That means Iran's Navy has been destroyed, its air forces destroyed, the majority of its ballistic missiles and long range drones have been destroyed or expended, its military-industrial infrastructure smashed, and its C3I destroyed. So if/when China goes after Taiwan, Iran will pose no meaningful distraction.

(Btw that's why Trump has been "bullying NATO" so they can get their sh1t together and deal with Russia while the US focuses on China)

Trump's said it would be great if the Iranian regime also fell, and he hopes the people rise up and the US will support them -- but regime change has been Israel's focus. Decapitating senior leadership and working their way down the chain, and now striking tactical Basiji and IRGC field commanders and units. The US has done some of this, like when it smashed one of their senior clerica leadership pow-wos in Qom with MOABs since Israel couldn't reach them. US assets have also helped destroy some of the Basiji forces. But Israel is also being too aggressive against civil infrastructure where the US has not been.

The Trump admin has clearly been trying to avoid civilian and civil infrastructure like water, power, distribution and otehr energy. That's why Trump pushed back on Israel when they struck a natural gas facility in revende for an Iranian attack. And wny Trump has threatened but not conducted strikes on iran's electrical system.

So the US could walk away having achieved most of its goals. Sure the Hormuz interdiction is an issue but that's being addressed both militarily and via diplmatic efforts. We will see.

Do I hope for regime change? I really do.

@SB

Welcome back.

So do you agree that this is and always was a deterrent conflict? Legion same question.

Regime change a happy and hopeful consequence?

I have lost faith in the Iranian people arising. I just don't think the ones wanting that change have the backbone to do it. Maybe the 30000 killed beforehand took that backbone out.

CNN admitted they lied to their viewers. 😳😱

Subject: Gunther Eagleman™ on X: "BREAKING: CNN just confirmed that their own reporting is absolute HORSESHlT after they spent nearly the entire day yesterday accusing Trump of lying about Iran talks. "We're now learning from a senior Iranian source that there has been an outreach between the U.S. and Iran." t.co/AX8XkmQxvl / X


link

So do you agree that this is and always was a deterrent conflict? Legion same question.

Regime change a happy and hopeful consequence?

Yep. The result of diplomatic breakdown in which it has been verified. A lot of people here are calling the US strikes on Iran "sudden," "unprovoked," or "without cause." That's missing the actual sequence that led to the escalation.

Before any strikes, the Trump administration offered Iran a civilian nuclear power program with American investment, sanctions relief, and unlimited free imported nuclear fuel for peaceful electricity generation — on the condition that Iran permanently give up domestic uranium enrichment and dismantle its enrichment infrastructure.

Iran rejected the offer. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly stated that Iran refused these "generous" terms, including the free fuel and joint civilian program, in exchange for ending enrichment.

Instead, according to U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff (who negotiated directly with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi alongside Jared Kushner), Iranian representatives opened the talks by asserting their "inalienable right to enrich" and stated they already possessed roughly 460 kg of uranium enriched to 60%. They openly acknowledged this stockpile could be further enriched into material for about 11 nuclear bombs. Witkoff described the statements as delivered "directly, with no shame" and as the starting point of their negotiating stance.

The deadlock was fundamental: U.S. red line: No domestic enrichment on Iranian soil (because it creates a short breakout path to weapons-grade material).
Iran's red line: Enrichment was non-negotiable, regardless of civilian benefits offered.

IAEA reports confirm the stockpile numbers were accurate. As of May 17, 2025: ~408.6 kg of uranium enriched up to 60%. By June 13, 2025 (just before strikes): ~440.9 kg of 60% enriched uranium — a short technical step from weapons-grade (90%) and theoretically enough for multiple bombs if further enriched.

So when talks collapsed, the U.S. faced a regime that had rejected a civilian-only path with free fuel and was using its near-weapons-grade stockpile as leverage. The strikes followed that failed diplomacy — not some random decision out of nowhere.This wasn't unprovoked aggression. It was the result of Iran insisting on keeping the enrichment infrastructure that gives them a rapid path to nuclear weapons if they choose to pursue one.The conflict didn't start with bombs. It started with the breakdown over enrichment rights and the explicit stockpile claims during negotiations.

Key sources you can check directly: Steve Witkoff on the 460 kg / 11 bombs discussion and Iran's opening stance: CBS News (March 3, 2026) and Fox News interview.
White House on the free fuel / civilian program offer and rejection: Karoline Leavitt statements (March 4, 2026 briefing) and Iran International reporting.
IAEA stockpile data: IAEA reports via AP News (June 2025) and Institute for Science and International Security analysis (May 2025) — 408.6 kg rising to 440.9 kg of 60% enriched uranium.
Broader negotiation context: Wikipedia summary of 2025–2026 talks and Reuters/Guardian coverage of the deadlock.

SB yes he has given the Iranian regime numerous opportunities to exit the escalator.

He just did it again.

If this is a deterrent conflict, what specific condition tells you deterrence has been achieved and the campaign ends?

If it never ends, then there is no end state.

@ Legion 4

You've covered the operational side pretty well—I'm just trying to pin down what the actual end condition would be in practical terms.

Of course, you're not required to go into it but I thought it might be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Got it !!!

I'm pleased you asked ! 😎

I went into some [too much!] detail on another thread here – "When You Say Nothing at All"*

If it never ends, then there is no end state.

Dunno, maybe it will just have to be an ongoing smack down. We detect activity to restart an enrichment facility – BOOM!

No Retreat, No Surrender: Why America Must Prevail in Iran

link

Armand

I think this conversation has moved to "When You Say Nothing at All"* … yes ?

According to the MSM media that so many still seem to believe, these are the 15 points of peace:

"Iran must dismantle existing nuclear capabilities.
Iran must commit never to pursue nuclear weapons.
No uranium enrichment on Iranian territory.
Iran must hand its stockpile of enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo nuclear facilities must be dismantled.
The IAEA must be granted full access to Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran must abandon its "regional proxy paradigm."
Iran must cease funding, directing and arming its proxies.
The Strait of Hormuz must remain open.
Iran's missile program must be limited in both range and quantity.
Iran must limit its use of missiles to self-defense.
Iran would benefit from:

Iran would benefit from:

The end of sanctions imposed by the international community.

US assistance to advance its civilian nuclear program.

A "snapback" mechanism allowing for the automatic reimposition of sanctions if Iran fails to comply would be removed."

I've heard they would have to repay us in oil for the cost of this war too.

Maybe that was that huge gift yesterday. "U.Sgeld"? 😏

I think a few more strong shows of force will be needed before whoever is running Iran, at least this morning, will seriously negotiate.

Israel by the way, not real happy with this.

Netanyahu had got to get a stronger ring for that nose. 😂

Now to be fair.

According to the MSM again, these are some of Iran's supposed demands.

If true, yep sounds like a few "high level strikes and moves may need to be needed yet.).

"Iranian representatives have told the Trump administration they have a high bar for returning to negotiations on a ceasefire deal, with the IRGC pressing demands including the closure of all US bases in the Persian Gulf and reparations for attacks on Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

Other demands were said to include a new arrangement for the Strait of Hormuz that would allow Iran to collect transit fees, guarantees that the war would not restart, an end to Israeli strikes on Hezbollah, the lifting of all sanctions on Iran, and preserving Iran's missile program without talks to limit it.

A US official described the demands to the Journal as "ridiculous and unrealistic." The report said Arab and US officials believed the opening messages in the new diplomatic round were passed through Middle Eastern intermediaries late last week and that Washington and Tehran were not in direct contact."

No mention of who stops Israel from continuing without us? They just might not go along. They may continue to "mow the grass".

Meanwhile Israel:

"Cruise missile production sites in Tehran were hit, Israel says
5 hours ago

Listen to this article
Two naval cruise missile production sites in Tehran were struck in recent days, the Israeli military said on Wednesday.

The sites were operating under Iran's defense ministry and being used to develop and manufacture long-range naval cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at sea and on land.

The military said the strikes caused extensive damage to Iran's cruise missile program and were part of a broader effort to weaken the country's military production infrastructure."

…. AND

"1 hour ago
Israel says it struck Iranian naval research center in Isfahan

Israel's military said on Wednesday it struck an underwater research center in Isfahan used by Iran's navy in an attack carried out on Tuesday.

The military said the facility was the only site in Iran responsible for the design and development of submarines and related support systems, and that unmanned vessels were also produced there.

It said the strike was part of a broader wave of attacks on Iran's military production facilities and would limit Tehran's ability to build and upgrade naval assets."

The first casualties of war are pre-war plans.

As often cited, the narrowest portion of the Strait of Hormel (pun intended) is 24 miles. But the NAVIGABLE WATERWAY at that point is only 1-3 miles. Ships cannot veer from that waterway for fear of running aground. This means you can effectively close the straight with a half-dozen mines.

During Hegseth press conferences, we are often given meaningless statistics describing thousands and thousands of "strikes." Well what is a "strike?" A sortie by one aircraft or a hit by one missile?

And what are we hitting? In one conference, we were told that the Iranians often conceal their missiles in trucks. What kinds of trucks? In one video, we were shown a direct hit on a pickup truck. In another press conference, we were told that 6,000 "strikes" had been conducted at that point. Man, that's a lot of pickup trucks!

In another photo we were shown an impressive video of a Soviet-made Hip-8 helicopter blowing up. Then the dust cleared and the helo reappeared. It seems the Iranians had painted the image of the helicopter on a concrete pad!

They have also used decoys of one-to-one scale models of F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats made of wood and rubber.

Hegseth has often described the destruction of drone and missile launchers with glee. But what is a launcher? What does it take to launch a drone? A few pieces of angle iron and a cheap electrical control box?

Whatever happened to critical thinking?

As to the Straits on who relies on it:

Top 20 in order

"Top 20 Countries Reliant on Imports via the Strait of Hormuz
Ranked by share of national energy imports or total daily volume.

Pakistan: Extremely high reliance; roughly 81% of total energy imports (oil and LNG) transit the strait.
Japan: Imports approximately 70–90% of its total oil through the strait.
South Korea: Relies on the strait for ~68–75% of its crude oil imports.
China: The largest single buyer by volume, importing ~5.4 million barrels per day (~40–50% of its total oil imports).
India: The second-largest buyer by volume; imports ~2.1 million barrels per day (~50% of its oil imports).
Thailand: Sources approximately 56% of its energy imports through the Persian Gulf.
Bangladesh: Highly vulnerable; relies on the strait for nearly two-thirds of its total LNG supplies.
Taiwan: Relies on the route for roughly 40% of its energy imports.
Maldives: Imports 42% of its energy through the strait.
Singapore: Regional oil hub; roughly 27–40% of its oil imports transit the waterway.
Philippines: Roughly 26% of its energy imports are sourced via the strait.
Sri Lanka: Approximately 33–36% trade dependency on Hormuz-linked transit.
Malaysia: Imports roughly 29% of its oil through the strait.
Australia: Estimated 32% trade dependency.
Tanzania: Estimated 31% trade dependency.
Somalia: Estimated 30% trade dependency.
Kenya: Estimated 26% trade dependency.
New Zealand: Estimated 26% trade dependency.
Mozambique: Estimated 22% trade dependency.
Sudan: Estimated 54% dependency for specific regional trade flows."

The U.S. technically falls in at drum roll…… 23. 😱

But not for oil.

"As of early 2025/2026, the U.S. receives only about 2.5% to 7% of its total crude oil imports through the Strait of Hormuz. This accounts for approximately 400,000 to 500,000 barrels per day.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov)"

An amount we can easily make up elsewhere.

The others who fell in around us?

Italy: Notable European importer; receives roughly 15% of its oil through the strait.
Spain: Imports roughly 12–15% of its crude via this route.
United States: Imports ~400,000 barrels per day (~7% of total crude imports).
United Kingdom: Dependent for significant Qatari LNG shipments.
Germany: Receives a portion of refined products and LNG.
France: Dependent on regional stability for seaborne energy security.
Turkey: Significant regional importer for both oil and gas.
Vietnam: Growing reliance for industrial energy needs.
Indonesia: Relies on the strait for ~20% of its oil imports.
Netherlands: Major European port (Rotterdam) processing Gulf crude.

Now what might they know, that Iran may find out? 🤔

"18 minutes ago
Russia evacuates more staff from Iran's Bushehr plant

Russia's Rosatom has evacuated a further 163 staff from Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, leaving about 300 still on site, state media reported on Wednesday.

Rosatom chief Alexei Likhachev said more personnel would leave as work on additional units remains suspended following the war."

Iran claims it launched "over 100" "cruise missiles" at the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Trump says we "shot down" 101 of them. None hit the carrier— one of the largest military vessels afloat in the world.
Which means two things— these missiles can't target a dang thing, and have no chance against US defenses.
I understand these are Chinese designed missiles. Which means China just got a very cold bucket of water in the face, too.

As to who's in charge in Iran, the answer is "no one." It's rather obvious that different factions want to be *the* Iranian government, and make the biggest empty boasts to "prove" it. The media is trying to make them sound cohesive or "official." But there's nothing like that at an actual leadership level across Iran.

Parz, you know those who have wanted to portray this as a defeat, since day 2, will find a way to deny pretty much anything and everything. 🙂

The # of missiles fired vary greatly. 4 today, to the numbers you've seen. Could have included drones. Who knows. What we do know, is none hit.

I can also say, it's a sad day for our country when people believe like this.

Subject: Steve Guest on X: "Beyond Parody: Obama's Communist CIA Director John Brennan on MSNow runs cover for the world's leading sponsor of terror. @SymoneDSanders: "Iran, they are an authoritarian regime who's known to lie." John Brennan: "Well, I tend to believe Iran more than I do Donald Trump, t.co/Fml9ljtYKW / X


link

Especially from a party that lied to the American people with wreckless abandon for 4 years.

The list is extremely long, starting with "he was not cognitively declined, and fully functional".

For those who may try to say I'm wrong, don't. I've accumulated quite the list since Obama. 😉