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

Incavart what I said has been what I have said before. It's not new. Maybe some just choose to ignore it, or stifle me. I've never varied that I see this as an ongoing war against radical fundamentalist Islam. Iran just the current focal point.

You and others want a WW2 type of victory?

"It's not that kinda war."

But short of an invasion or nukes, (which would be opposed as well), please enlighten us on how YOU would achieve the type of STRATEGIC victory you are demanding?

When has radical fundamentalist Islam ever been permanently stopped since 600 AD? Key word: "permanently".

So again, a question for you to answer.

Please don't say Obama style negotiations. Those failed. Iran only got stronger and richer (money only used for military and proxy wars, obviously. Ask Israel.).

Keep in mind, none of us are privy to actual information. CBS can print anything and they like the rest of the MSM are no friends of the administration. 😂

SB your point is a telling one. The polls are all running in the same direction, not good. Includes Republican support dropping and losing Independents. It is the messaging, IMO.

If he could just stop talking so much….its like a ride on a runaway rollercoaster. He is also running too many distraction actions.

He remains the POTUS who has gone the farthest in trying to end the Iran threat. I wanted him to win once he started this. I am crossing conventional warfare off my possible Iran solutions list.

Neutralizing Iran is not about conventional war. That's not how they fight against outsiders. Like Isis, they are never really knocked out fully, they regenerate and start over. Somehow, change needs to come from within. But even then, the long history of the ME shows how sticky things can get for western powers jumping in.
I have already described how I thought Iranian fanatic rule might be destabilized by intensive covert operations, I could be describing the next Jack Ryan movie instead. But I do know we have to outsmart these guys to win.

No insult meant to Jack Ryan. If only he was real….

I am not demanding a World War II-style victory. I am questioning whether an indefinite war against a religious-political tendency is a coherent American war aim.

If the objective is "permanently stop radical fundamentalist Islam," then you have defined a civilizational struggle with no realistic endpoint. That is not a strategy; it is a permanent condition.

You are defending a posture of indefinite recurring force while presenting each tactical success as though it were strategic resolution. Those are different things.

If the actual policy is containment, deterrence, and periodic degradation, then say so plainly. But that also requires admitting the costs, duration, and limits of such a policy. It also requires democratic consent, because you are describing a generational commitment, not a discrete operation.

I do not need to produce a perfect war plan to question whether an open-ended war aim is prudent. Citizens are allowed to ask whether the objective is achievable, whether the costs are sustainable, and whether the policy has been honestly presented.

Further, if people are critical of the current administration, it may be because this approach appears improvised, unnecessary, and likely to carry significant economic costs.

Conversely, if the administration and its partners pursue a strategy that appears poorly integrated and then stalls, it's not particularly persuasive to attribute criticism to bias rather than to the performance of the policy itself.

Then why are so many sources saythat it will take 6 months to clear the Straits of mines? When and if, of course if we ever get a real " ceasefire".
Do you really think that they are mapping the mines? And that they're not sophisticated mines, with Russian engineering?

Well John … I'll rely on the reports from many GENs and ADMs Ret. Yes John they even know more that you and some other who post here. Yes … they do … they are not armchair GENs/ADMs …

The first US DDs that cleared the Strait initially used underwater drones. To find any mines. 0 were found by the U-Drones. However again the remain IRGC are still trying to launch mines. Do you and others here understand how this thing works.

Clearing sea mines are challenging. We had a speaker at the Mil Ofr. Assoc. of America. A few months back. He served in Vietnam. He was an officer of a minesweeper. They and others were to clear the Gulf of Tonkin after the war ended …

It was pretty time consuming and a bit dicey then. It is easier now. But one has to be through. For obvious reasons.

You and some others here may want to read up on those types of ops.

I know in the Army we were trained to clear mines and booby traps, by hand even as ROTC Cadets. As CEs are not always around when you find a minefield. You know how you find one ? John ? Ochion ? As most minefields are not marked. You know when someone in unit steps on one. I'm sure it's easier now … However, one still has to be "careful".

Again, I'm sure on the water even currently it is still not a day at the beach. Even with all the high tech we have now. Verses back when I was no active duty, '79-'90, USAR, '90-'92.

As I said I have two tours on the ROK DMZ, '84-'85. There were minefields clearly marked probably since when they were sowed in '53? But one day a Korean farmer found one that was not marked or missed. We had to go get him … After that we were even more careful. One mine or booby trap/IED is one too many.

Didn't see any of the very smart master of the military/armchair QBs/GENs on here. Anywhere when we did that training or on the DMZ, etc. … [yes … I'm being a jerk … but I'm not alone here …]

Also, that 6-month window is a max estimate at this time. And it is not only for clearing sea mines. But cleaning up the remaining islamists, their weapons, etc. Guess some figured it would take 6 months to clear the Strait? It is big but it is not that big. 22 miles at the widest point, IIRC.

Again there are some islamists who want to go to paradise. They are more than willing to do what is takes to try and kill the infidels. So we have to kill them first … Again the math is simple.

OVI +1

SBm +1

I am not demanding a World War II-style victory. I am questioning whether an indefinite war against a religious-political tendency is a coherent American war aim.

Good thing as there has not been too many WWII style victories … well … since WWII. Don't remember anything after Korea. But that is only a truce. Nor Vietnam. Albeit after Gulf War I, there were some parades.

But after poorer elected and appointed officials' in DC made their decisions. Which were not very good. We had to go back. To clean up the mess … again. E.g. one POTUS pulled out almost all US troops. The Iraqi gov't was barely competent. ISIS came into the picture. And yes, we had to go back … And we still have troops there and in the region.

Again, I don't think Iran's islamic regime will last 6 months. Most intel believes there it will take time … To clean up the mess two previous POTUS's left. Giving the islamist billions of $ is one of the reasons we are there now.

If the objective is "permanently stop radical fundamentalist Islam," then you have defined a civilizational struggle with no realistic endpoint. That is not a strategy; it is a permanent condition.

That is not one of the goals of this operation. Besides it is not achievable not now and possibly forever.

I think I outlined the objectives of this campaign before. Based on what I heard from many RET. GENs, ADMs, etc.

1) No nukes for Iran's islamist … No quest for the End Times …

2) Stop them from funding other islamist terrorists … e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq's Shite militias, the Houthis, etc.

3) They can't interfere with the Strait of Hormuz, to disrupt much of the world's oil supplies …

4) The have to stop the slaughter of their own people. In horrendous ways. To terrorized them into submission …

I have said this before. The GWoT is not over. The US and its reliable allies have to keep on this. Killing and destroying islamist and their equipment at every opportunity. Frankly I don't care if we have to execute drone, TLAM and airstrikes, almost daily forever has long as it takes… Of course many in the US wouldn't like that option. However, they will be much more upset if Iran starts tossing nuke ICBMs …

The New York Times (😱) weighs in.
link

Just click "maybe later" and you can bypass the horrifying paywall. I do it all the time, but I guess I'm a loser because I value all opinions.

Legion +1

Incavart

"I am not demanding a World War II-style victory. I am questioning whether an indefinite war against a religious-political tendency is a coherent American war aim.

If the objective is "permanently stop radical fundamentalist Islam," then you have defined a civilizational struggle with no realistic endpoint. That is not a strategy; it is a permanent condition."

[ I think I have said this is a continuing conflict, with only pauses, before it all has to be done again. As long as radical fundamentalist Muslims rule. If they are in charge anywhere, it is a clash of civilizations. Has been since 600. But, some people need to understand that.

There is only the alternatives.

Surrender to it. As too many have.

Be defeated. As too many have.

Act as if it does not exist. As too many do here and elsewhere. Trade no conflict in exchange for boarding a plane, sailing in a ship, going into a restaurant, attending a church or synagogue and hope to not be shot, hijacked or 🔥.

That is the same logic we have followed since Carter. Similar to the same policy the other party takes with illegals. In exchange for votes, electoral votes and state tax money from the feds(ie power and $), willing sacrifice the lives of actual citizens and the waste of taxpayers money.]

"You are defending a posture of indefinite recurring force while presenting each tactical success as though it were strategic resolution. Those are different things."

[ No, the tactical successes are important to an ultimate goal. Whether that goal is ultimately an overall strategic victory or a temporary deterrent.. none of us know.

But also important because yours and others sources of news, do NOT report them. Instead only dwelling on doom, gloom, disaster and the never ending war of……. 50 days. Can you deny it? ]

"If the actual policy is containment, deterrence, and periodic degradation, then say so plainly. But that also requires admitting the costs, duration, and limits of such a policy. It also requires democratic consent, because you are describing a generational commitment, not a discrete operation."

[😂 when have I NOT!!??

"Democratic consent"?? No, just Democrats back in power to bring it to an end and appease the leadership of Iran.. again. Because we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Even that may be deteriorating as we breathe. I haven't seen a nationwide vote on a war in my lifetime, by each and every citizen (and illegal and dead in certain states. 😏).so not an athenian democracy]

"I do not need to produce a perfect war plan to question whether an open-ended war aim is prudent. Citizens are allowed to ask whether the objective is achievable, whether the costs are sustainable, and whether the policy has been honestly presented."

[you don't think so? Well you better have an alternative, other than never ending criticism. Because the alternative was NOT working and time and history were NOT on our civilization's side.]

"Further, if people are critical of the current administration, it may be because this approach appears improvised, unnecessary, and likely to carry significant economic costs."

[and when the first dirty nuke went off, or worse. What than would be said: "Trump did nothing!! Now look how many are dead!!😡🤬 What an idiot he and Pete were!!"]

"Conversely, if the administration and its partners pursue a strategy that appears poorly integrated and then stalls, it's not particularly persuasive to attribute criticism to bias rather than to the performance of the policy itself."

[Again we have only perceptions. Only those of our favorite politicians and media. We know that will never be favorable from one side and 95% of the media worldwide.]

Following the regrettable events near Cannae in 216 BCE, certain Roman commentators insisted the real issue was not that Hannibal had surrounded and annihilated an army twice his size but rather that hostile observers simply "hated Rome" and refused to respect Roman leadership.

"People are being very unfair to Consul Gaius Terentius Varro," they declared, while standing knee-deep in legionaries. "Yes, perhaps eighty thousand men marched into a tactical meat grinder but have you considered the anti-Roman bias of the historians? The Carthaginian media keeps talking about ‘encirclement' and ‘catastrophic losses' instead of acknowledging our strong pre-battle messaging."

Others added that critics were obsessed with "optics," pointing out that Rome still held excellent positions on the moral high ground, if not on the actual battlefield.

Senators reassured the public that being double-enveloped was, in fact, part of a long-term strategy and that any suggestion otherwise merely proved deep prejudice against Roman values, Roman greatness and especially Roman officeholders who had absolutely, definitely, not blundered into the most famous disaster in military history.

(Thank you, thank you. I'll be appearing here all week).

Yet in the end, Hannibal and Carthage lost. They were annihilated, their city sacked, their women raped and enslaved, and Carthage and their empire, disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Long live Rome! Long live the United States!

( I'll be appearing in place of the previous guy who couldn't draw a crowd.) 😉

An Iranian F-5 reportedly bombed a US base in Kuwait.

link

AI says multiple locations may have been hit, damage info not released. Very vague and no hard reporting from anywhere else. If it happened, not getting coverage.

Yes very early in the conflict, if it happened. Supposedly a layered attack. Mostly sites like thread, facebook etc.

But that bastion of news reporting, "The Daily Beast" headline about it:

"Trump Goons Caught Covering Up Massive War Damage"

And you wonder why we say what we say. 🙄

OVI +1

The New York Times (😱) weighs in.

Not always a reliable source …

I guess I'm a loser because I value all opinions.

That not the reason … 😎

An Iranian F-5 reportedly bombed a US base in Kuwait.

That is the first time I have heard anything like this. I read the link. I think if it did happen. The results are being overblown. One F-5 and some drone strikes and that demonstrates the US military is in trouble ? I think the author is a bit biased, and this sounds more Iranian propaganda.

Now think about the probability of an F-5, and a few drones flying to Kuwait without being noticed. Getting by some radars, other EW systems, etc. From Iran to Kuwait … and was not picked up by CAP or EW, even if it was flying low to avoid detection.

I think that scenario has a high probability of being highly unlikely. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But the probability is very low.

Again the article talks about US ADA vulnerabilities and the horrendous damage caused by one F-5 and a few drones … And how disastrous such a very small strike package was devastating.

Just does not make sense to me …

But as many who write articles about the US and this current conflict. And how poorly the US is doing. Based on all I have heard from Ret GENs and ADMs, etc. that is false.

This seems to me like more anti-US, pro-islam, etc. rhetoric, etc.

I'm leaning strongly on the words of some of Ret GENs and ADMs comments. Not some others in the in the media.

Trump should just finish the job on Iran

"…Yet, the pounding was well begun but only half done when Trump called a pause. Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of Centcom, had reportedly needed 14 more days to finish the list of targets given to him for Operation Epic Fury. If the admiral had not been stopped in his tracks midway, maybe Iran would have been keener on a deal than it is now.

It may be argued that the ceasefire is in name only, and both parties have continued to fight by other means, namely dueling blockades in the Strait of Hormuz. The twin blockades have involved firing and damage to cargo ships and have almost stalled diplomacy.

The Iranians had refused to come to Islamabad for the latest scheduled round of talks, and Pakistan had to beg Trump for an extension of the ceasefire. True to contradictory form, Trump has labeled the ceasefire as "indefinite" while simultaneously threatening to resume hostilities…"

link

Middle East conflict looks increasingly like a war nobody can win

"Let's begin with a simple question that rarely gets a straight answer: what would victory over Iran actually look like? In Washington and Jerusalem, the answers tend to sound definitive: eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, break its regional power, perhaps even force political change at the top. It's the language of decisive war, the kind with a clear endpoint.

But shift the perspective to Tehran and the definition changes completely. Victory, for Iran, is survival. That asymmetry shapes the entire conflict. In wars like this, the side that needs less to claim success often has the advantage – and, right now, Iran needs far less.

There is no denying the military imbalance. The US and Israel can strike with extraordinary precision and reach. They have demonstrated that repeatedly – targeting infrastructure, leadership and strategic assets.

But tactical success has yet to translate into political outcome. Iran's state hasn't fractured. Its governing system remains intact, and its networks – military, regional, ideological – continue to function. Even its most sensitive capabilities, including nuclear expertise, remain resilient.

The deeper miscalculation lies in assuming Tehran is playing the same game as Washington. It isn't. Iran is not trying to defeat the US or Israel outright. It is trying to outlast them, complicate their objectives and raise the cost of progress until it becomes unsustainable…"

link

Armand

+1 Ochoin. Very funny.

@ Grattan. Yes funny AND pointed.

Hoping for more.

"55 minutes ago
Iran steel capacity reportedly down after US-Israeli strikes

Iran's steel industry has lost about 10 million tons of annual production capacity after Israeli and US attacks, Etemad newspaper reported on Sunday.

The figure amounts to about 25% to 30% of the country's steel production capacity, according to estimates cited in the report.

Iran's steel industry was "not in good shape" following the strikes, according to the report."

Regarding the poor economic situation of a country like Iran, my impression is that pointing out its decline is pointless… the worse it gets, the more repressive the regime will become. Furthermore, you must consider that in Third World countries (like the one I live in), we are more than accustomed to severe economic crises. We don't have the same vision of economic equilibrium as your country or the rest of the First world population. People get used to surviving however they can, and if they can't vote because they are repressed, they blame others, as happens in Russia. Therefore, no matter how much effort you put into showing Iran's economic decline, it won't change their way of life at all; on the contrary, it will radicalize it even further.

Armand

Trump should just finish the job on Iran

Yes we all want that … but more has to be done … And as estimates say it many that 2-6 months.

After all Biden and Obama have said about Trump and how they have treated him, he still tries to propagate their "Green New Deal" agenda. 😏

Subject: Open Source Intel on X: "Iran's President Pezeshkian is urging citizens to cut electricity use amid the ongoing crisis. "What's wrong with turning on 2 lights instead of 10?" t.co/2nFnLkhH7D / X


link

35thOVI +1

35th the psychological impact of the constant threats for Obama was said to be very difficult for family, security, staff. Didnt know right away which ones to take seriously, which threats were imminent. It was continuous stress, but they learned to live with it every day, still do to a lesser extent.

I think we may differ on what deranged means. I once interviewed a woman who was very laid back and relaxed right after committing a deadly violent crime. She was matter of fact. Her world made sense to her. This guy reminds me of that. Murdering anyone with that kind of attitude is the personification of crazy to me. You dislike an official, or anyone else so you kill him? Thinking that it a solution is nuts. These seemingly clear headed ones are the scariest.

We can find tit for tat on both sides over the years. Again, the list is just as long for each. It would take forever to list them. You may have a narrower definition. But we can agree that public discourse around politics and government has deteriorated and become a menace at times.

The job now, as always is to review the AAR and keep POTUS safe. And all the others….

🤔

I'm confused.

Haven't many here told me Trump is Putin's puppet?

But, But, Araghchi says Putin is Iran's friend and Putin seemed to agree.

But if Iran is Russia's friend and Russia and the Ukraine are fighting and you say the Ukraine is the friend of all us, doesn't that make Iran the enemy of all of us? 🤔

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Monday expressed gratitude to Russian President Vladimir Putin for Moscow's continued support of Tehran, as the two officials met in St. Petersburg for talks.

At the start of the meeting, Araghchi emphasized the strength of ties between the two countries, describing their relationship as a strategic partnership at the highest level.

"I was asked to confirm during this visit that Russian-Iranian relations continue to be a strategic partnership at the highest level. This is the way we will move forward," Araghchi said.

He also underscored Russia's backing of Iran during challenging periods, highlighting the importance of alliances.

"It was proven to everyone that Iran has friends and allies, such as Russia, who stand by Iran during difficult times. We thank you for your firm position in support of Iran," he added."

Yes 35th, but I did say he can stand trial based on what we see so far.

"Haven't many here told me Trump is Putin's puppet?…"

What's the confusion?… Trump shows friendship and respect to Putin, and Putin rubs that in his…

Armand

🤔

Since Iran was a key ally of Russia before we and Israel attacked them and obviously still are.

You are saying by dismantling Iran, we are rubbing it back in Putin's face in payment for his disrespect of our president's hand of friendship and hurting Russia to boot.

Win win.

Thanks

SB if I am permitted to make an analogy. It read exactly like the beliefs of this group.

"Marcus Junius Brutus (Julius Caesar, 44 BC): Brutus and other Roman senators viewed the assassination of Caesar as a justified act of tyrannicide. They believed they were saving the Roman Republic from becoming a monarchy, with Brutus arguing that the killing of a dictator was a moral necessity to restore freedom."

The message of this thread has now become: "This is a permanent civilizational struggle, and all events confirm it."

Iranian resistance proves they're fanatics

U.S. escalation proves we're winning

domestic violence proves internal enemies

Russia/Iran ties proves global alignment

This is now a closed system. Nothing enters that can contradict it.

The discussion has moved well beyond the original question of strategy. Multiple unrelated events are now being interpreted through a single lens and treated as confirmation of a broader narrative.

That makes it difficult to evaluate specific claims, because no development appears capable of contradicting the underlying premise. At that point, it's no longer a question of evidence or analysis, but of interpretation.

Well gee, the original question was:

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

The post started with hopes, than posts of successes, which were quickly followed by anti Trump and in some cases anti U.S. vitriol, followed by defense of same, than it is all a vast disaster and on and on.

But if you are just wanting to address the original question.. fine.

Has the original regime fallen?

If by original leadership of Iran. Yes. ☠️
If by ideology bent. Undetermined as of yet. As the regime is currently split between radical fundamentalist Islamist and less radical Muslim leadership.

Now if we stick to original intent of thread, that should end it.

I think what support Trump does have for this conflict, about 35%, would fall rapidly.

Those numbers do fluctuate, and we all know that. However, with the recent visit of the King & Queen of England. More and more see the UK PM is not really on the 1st Tm. The POTUS's and his numbers may go up. Even the 3d assassination attempt on the POTUS, may actually have a positive effect of his ratings.

However, there are many in Congress, media, etc. who will never say anything "good" about the POTUS, his admin, etc.

Again, IMO in this conflict it revolves around do we have temporary higher gas prices. Or do we let Iran's theocratic islamists regime get deployable nukes ? Which is more upsetting and destructive ?

If Israel or e.g. London was nuked, which we now know they have missiles with those longer ranges. As well as probably with the Chicoms maybe Russia's assistance they want to develop ICBMs which could hit DC, NYC, etc.

I think the choice should be simple … unless some hate, etc. the POTUS, etc. so much. They'd rather see the USA not be successful with removing Iran's hard core islamists from the board. They better study more about how much damage nukes and other WMDs can do … No one should doubt those WMD's lethality …

I certainly don't…but the home front matters too. Promises were made. Some kept. Some still up in the air. And serious questions about conduct on the right deserve the same attention as those on the left. Gas and food were a big topic here under Biden. Now we say "temporary". No excuses for Biden, no excuses for Trump. Health care costs way up, manufacturing jobs lost. We can barely build our own ships. Too many distraction actions, iMO.

Tort keep in mind, the medical increase was because "we the taxpayers" are no longer subsidizing Obama Care increases.

"Based on early 2025 projections and policy actions, health care costs are expected to be higher in Trump's second term, largely due to the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and proposed policy shifts. While some experts suggest specific drug-negotiation rollbacks may have limited immediate impact, broader moves are projected to increase premiums and reduce coverage"

"Yes, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) uses federal taxpayer money to fund its programs, primarily through health insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion. While the law was designed to be "budget neutral" by offsetting these costs with new taxes and savings, the funds distributed to help people pay for medical care are sourced from the federal government."

Give the President credit for attempting to restart the building of ships here, while attempting to get the ship building moving by having some built elsewhere. Something started by the way, under Biden with Ice Breakers. 😉

It's interesting that taxpayer cost becomes a concern in some contexts but not others.

The point raised earlier wasn't about healthcare policy in isolation but about the broader issue of cost and sustainability.

Large scale military action, especially one described as ongoing or indefinite, carries real financial, economic, and social costs that don't disappear simply because the objective is seen as important.

If we're going to talk about burden on taxpayers, then it should be applied consistently across policies; including war. Otherwise it starts to look selective rather than analytical. Especially if the policy being defended is open-ended, because that's where costs compound the most over time.

OVI +1 … again … ah … still …

Large scale military action, especially one described as ongoing or indefinite, carries real financial, economic, and social costs that don't disappear simply because the objective is seen as important.

Very Large … regardless, it has only been 60 days or so … And yes, it is still ongoing …

As a campaign goes on … situations morph, kinetic actions can be costly. In both blood & treasure …

Certainly with the threat of Iran getting nukes no matter what they say. That risk must be mitigated … not ignored …

@Legion 4

The seriousness of the threat isn't really the issue here. The question is how it's being handled.

Saying it's only been 60 days might explain why things are still unclear, but it doesn't really explain how what's being done now is supposed to get us to a defined result. Even early on, you'd expect at least a clear objective and some way to measure progress against it; some kind of end state, even if it's provisional.

If anything, the fact that costs are going to build over time makes that more important, not less. Otherwise time just becomes the excuse to keep pushing ops rather than a way to assess whether the approach is actually working.

A continuing blockade can apply pressure, sure, but it's not exactly a clean or decisive tool on its own. At this point we've seen disruption and some tactical wins, but not much in terms of an actual political outcome. It kind of looks like things have settled into a stalemate of pressure without conversion into anything decisive.

And blockades aren't cheap or quick. They take assets, they take time, and they can start hitting broader economic conditions before they actually force a change in behavior.

So if anything, it looks like the current approach isn't really translating into the outcomes that were probably expected, which brings you back to the same questions about sustainability and what the end state even is.

You've said you support the current approach and assume there's a broader plan in place, but what's your take on the way forward? What would you actually adjust from here operationally or strategically to move this toward a defined result?

Incavart there is absolutely no way to know if any approach has failed. You like the rest of us, are not privy to military intelligence.

So all opinions are based on sources we (will) read, politicians we believe.

We have proof the side that is anti war has agendas and has lied to us on numerous occasions.

My side has agendas as well.

What you have said from early on is very similar to what the head of Germany said yesterday.

On Wednesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told a group of secondary school students in western Germany that "there is a sense that a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, particularly by these so-called Revolutionary Guards," Bloomberg reports."

In Metz's case, an opinion I don't accept, not ever have.

At last Trump has cut back on talking, it seems. This will help cut back on the inside betting in DC. And we can stop thinking about time estimates that are not even close. But oil is now the most expensive since the start of the war.

If there is a Trump card to play yet to come, soon would be good.

This as well as worldwide terrorism is what is involved here… and has been for a long long time.

"An Iranian nuclear breakout or the transfer of "dirty bombs" to proxies is widely viewed by military and intelligence analysts as a transformative threat that would permanently alter global and regional security.

1. Direct Strategic ConsequencesIf Iran successfully weaponizes its nuclear program, analysts anticipate several immediate shifts in the regional balance of power:

Irreversibility of the Regime: Much like North Korea, Iran would likely view nuclear weapons as the ultimate "insurance policy" against foreign-led regime change.

Regional Arms Race: Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt have signaled that a nuclear-armed Iran would compel them to seek their own nuclear deterrents, potentially ending the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as an effective global tool.

Shield for Conventional Aggression: With a nuclear "umbrella," Iran might feel emboldened to use conventional forces or proxies more aggressively, believing its nuclear status deters any large-scale retaliatory invasion of Iranian territory.

2. The "Dirty Bomb" Proxy ThreatThe transfer of radiological "dirty bombs" (conventional explosives used to scatter radioactive material) to groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis would introduce unprecedented challenges:

Erosion of Deterrence: Proxies often provide Iran with "plausible deniability". If a non-state group used a dirty bomb, it would be difficult for the U.S. or Israel to determine whether to retaliate against the proxy or against Tehran itself.

Psychological Warfare: While dirty bombs lack the mass-killing power of true nuclear weapons, they cause massive psychological terror and long-term economic disruption by rendering urban centers or critical infrastructure (like oil ports) unusable for years.

"Strategic Suicide": Some experts argue that transferring such weapons would be a self-defeating move for Iran, as it would likely unify global powers (including Russia and China) in a massive military response or a push for total regime change.3. Immediate Military Risks (2026 Context)In the current 2026 conflict environment, the risk of a "dirty bomb" event is not just about intentional transfer, but also accidental release:

Strike-Induced Contamination: Analysts have warned that U.S. or Israeli strikes on underground uranium stockpiles in cities like Isfahan could inadvertently act as a "dirty bomb" by scattering radioactive material across several kilometers.

Breakout Speed: Intelligence assessments in early 2026 suggest Iran is capable of rapidly producing weapon-grade uranium if it chooses to "dash" for a bomb, though its weaponization program has been a primary target of recent airstrikes to create "bottlenecks".
"