"winning in Iran -- five steps" Topic

Marc Thieseen's column at WaPo is paywalled but here are his five steps

1. Complete all remaining military tasks. Trump said the war will "continue until our objectives are fully achieved." So which tasks remain? Seize or destroy Iran's fissile material so the regime cannot easily restart its nuclear program (or give what Trump calls its "nuclear dust" to terrorists for a dirty bomb). Take out all the remaining targets on the military's list. Implement the innovative plan that sources tell me Centcom Commander Adm. Brad Cooper has prepared to open the Strait of Hormuz by force, and then hand the mission over to a multinational armada made up of countries who receive oil from the strait, which must take responsibility for keeping it open. Or, alternatively, the United States can charge a substantial "escort fee" for each ship passing through the strait, which would be waived for countries participating in the mission. And then, finally, either take control of Kharg Island, by seizing or blockading this linchpin of Iran's energy export sector, or destroy it to cripple Iran's ability to fund terrorist proxies and a military rebuild.

If the U.S. completes these tasks, it will have a stranglehold over Iran, and the regime will never again be able to hold the world's economy hostage. U.S. military commanders believe that these objectives can be achieved in the next two to three weeks, but the determination of when the mission is complete should be conditions-based. Success matters more than speed.

2. Eliminate the Iranian leaders who were spared for the purpose of negotiations. Trump reportedly asked Israel not to strike certain Iranian leaders so he would have negotiating partners. If those leaders refuse his terms of surrender, their existence has no remaining purpose. Trump should issue one last ultimatum, then unleash Israel to take them out in a final barrage of leadership strikes.

3. Unilaterally declare victory. No ceasefire. No peace agreement. When Cooper informs the president that he has achieved all the military tasks set out for him, Trump should announce that he is suspending military operations.

4. Impose peace terms. Trump should announce to the remnants of the regime that all the demands he put forward are now in effect and will be imposed by force if necessary. If Iran violates any of his terms — by trying to rebuild its nuclear or ballistic missile programs, for instance, or providing support for its terrorist proxies — the U.S. and Israel reserve the right to strike at will. Iran tests America's resolve at its peril.

5. Bar Iran from firing on protesters and set conditions for eventual regime collapse. Trump should inform the regime that the U.S. will tolerate no more massacres and executions. If the Iranian people take to the streets and the regime fires upon them, the units and leaders responsible will face elimination. Each time they kill innocent Iranians, the U.S. and Israel reserve the right to respond by killing Iran's political and military leaders.

Delusional.
Try to tell me that #2 makes any sense, particularly if you announce it in advance.

The war will not be over until the Iranians say it is over. We can bomb them back to the stone age and declare victory anytime we want. But Iran or its proxies will retaliate within the U.S., striking the population and/or our oil/gas facilities.

And when they do, you can ask yourself, "Was it worth it? What did we really gain?"

You can walk away, but with all the flip flopping and wrestling with unanticipated consequences (that should have been anticipated), it will always look like "I meant to do that" when clearly this was not the plan.

If you have a lot of goodwill built up you can claim you won and people might say nothing, but there is not a lot of goodwill anywhere right now.

I'm all for declaring victory and going home, I just don't think they can sell it.

I think there was a plan for day 1, after that failed, I don't think there was ever another plan and the US armed forces are now just flailing around hoping for the best…

I don't think it reflects on the US military – it wasn't given clear achievable; objectives, but they are the ones paying the price and being worn down…

"Our" policy is as coherent as the tariff policy.

DF, John and any of the rest.

"But Iran or its proxies will retaliate within the U.S., striking the population and/or our oil/gas facilities."

They, their proxies and fundamentalist Muslims have been doing that since 79 already, so not new. But NOW we have angered them?

So How do they strike in the U.S.?

We know Iran cannot do it from Iran. Even their best missile will only reach some European capitals.

No long range bombers. He#l! Not much or any AF left.

So again, how?

Please be specific.

Agreed, Iran or its proxies could never strike the U.S. in a traditional military sence.

But what about a terrorist, suicide bomber or drone attack?

Five Steps to Losing in Iran

1. Define victory so broadly it means nothing.
"Complete all remaining military tasks" is perfect—because there will always be one more target, one more objective, one more reason not to stop.

2.Turn a war into a to-do list.
Seize this, destroy that, occupy the other thing… preferably all at once. Bonus points if geography, logistics, and physics are treated as minor inconveniences. Strait of Hormuz, anyone?

3.Assume escalation is control.
If something resists, escalate. If that fails, escalate again. Eventually, you're not managing the war—the war is managing you.

4.Replace strategy with declarations.
"Unilaterally declare victory" has a proud history of not persuading the other side. Still, saying it loudly is what counts.

5.Plan the enemy's internal politics for them.
Nothing says "quick win" like assuming you can choreograph another country's leadership, population and reactions under fire.

Optional Step 6: Alienate your allies.
Demand they contribute, ignore their interests, insult them and keep them out of the decision-making. Act surprised when your "coalition" becomes a mailing list.

NB no paywall. I does me work for free!

"But what about a terrorist, suicide bomber or drone attack?"

Question 2:

Who would these terrorists be?

Germans? Amish? French? Hindus?

You're framing it like the only options are random groups or direct Iranian military action, and that's not really how this works.

Iran doesn't need long-range bombers to create problems—it's spent decades building relationships with proxy groups and networks that operate outside traditional military structures. That's the whole point of asymmetric warfare.

Groups like Hezbollah, or smaller affiliated cells and sympathizers, don't operate like a conventional army and don't need to.

And it's not just about organized groups. When tensions escalate, you also increase the risk of:
-individuals already in the U.S. becoming radicalized or mobilized
-cyberattacks targeting infrastructure (energy, pipelines, financial systems)
-low-cost, low-tech attacks that don't require state-level capability

We've already seen how non-state actors can carry out attacks without needing a nation's air force, look at September 11 attacks. That wasn't a conventional military strike either.

So the point isn't "Iran can launch missiles at us." It's that escalation raises the odds of indirect retaliation in forms that are harder to predict, prevent, and respond to.

That's the risk I'm talking about, not certainty, but consequences that are a lot messier than a clean "win."

I will end with this because I come to TMP to pursue my interests in the hobby of wargaming. There are many other places to debate current affairs.

35thOVI,

I have always appreciated your previous contributions to TMP, but your last comment is foolish.

"Who would these terrorists be?"

"Germans? Amish? French? Hindus?"

I'm looking for a more constructive and good-faith discussion than this feels like right now, so I'm going to step away. Take care.

Given that the five points were behind a paywall and we now see for free, I couldn't help but think of John Swartwelder's hard boiled detective character Frank Burly sitting, surveying his office-
"..On another wall was a sign that said "DO IT TOMORROW". I got it cheap because its bad advice."

there will always be one more target, one more objective, one more reason not to stop.

And that is one of the tasks of the military intelligence to do – look for targets to strike. And once they have got started, the combat elements will happily continue striking any newly identified targets as long as they have the resources to do so.

That is, until the political leadership tells them to stop.

Desert Fox.

This was not personal.

I'm trying to make a specific point.

Yes, we ARE in danger. But it's not new. It has been going on for decades.
Our own politicians and judges put us in danger and continue to do so.

And yes, Obviously they are Muslim.

So how can a country best protect itself from a threat like this?

Open it borders wide open with little or no vetting?
Allow millions of the unvetted into the country?
Fight tooth and nail to prevent them from being sent back?
Allow them to drop children who automatically are citizens?
Do one's best to hide them with sanctuary cities and states?
Refuse to pass spending bills that impede those hired to protect us in our cities, airports and borders, to protect the illegals here?

No, those who govern should do their upmost to protect its "actual" citizens. What they have done and continue to do from above, is endangering all of us.

Those who did that, do not care about our lives or the lives of our families. For them, we are expendable!