"Is it over?" Topic

we don't connect on this one. With all due respect…. I think a lot of right wing reporting on the left wing menace is exagerrated to stoke outrage and get ratings. We are so divided in part because this happens on both sides. It is at the heart of many discussions here.

Yes all that may be true. But it seems much of what one side says makes sense to me. Based on my past, studies, etc. The other side … not so much.

"The first casualty of war is truth." …

Agreed….

"The truth is, the truth ain't what it used to be"….

It is in the eye of the beholder or propagandist …

Mixed messaging from Iran and US on ceasefire deal

link

Iran attacks damage 20 US military sites since start of war, satellite images show

link

Several Americans injured in Iranian attack in Kuwait, report says

link

U.S. Says It Hit More Military Targets in Southern Iran

link

Armand

One killed and dozens injured in Iranian drone strikes on Kuwait airport

link

Armand

Mixed messaging from Iran and US on ceasefire deal

Can anyone believe the "facts" that come from islamists ? E.g. reports from Hamas in Gaza.

Iran attacks damage 20 US military sites since start of war, satellite images show

Yes with intel from the Chicoms most likely … Regardless, it is a conflict, some losses may occur. The risks must be mitigated. But still some loses may be taken.

Several Americans injured in Iranian attack in Kuwait, report says

May have occurred … again ordinance of all types are being used …

U.S. Says It Hit More Military Targets in Southern Iran

There is still more targets to be serviced in Iran.

One killed and dozens injured in Iranian drone strikes on Kuwait airport

Yes as I said … there is a war going on …

And it seems the only way to mitigate the threat of Iran's islamists, is to continue to attrite them …

Thought this interesting. Government desperate enough to start taking individual citizens savings?

From: II

"10 hours ago
Iranians report missing bank funds as distrust grows – report

Reports of missing funds from Iranian bank accounts are fueling growing distrust in the financial system, with customers reporting unexplained losses and conflicting explanations from banks.

An investigation by Alhurra reported on Friday multiple cases in which account holders said funds disappeared from banks including Bank Melli and Bank Sepah, with some told the losses were due to hacking or cyberattacks attributed to hostile actors, while others received no clear explanation.

Iran's Central Bank has previously acknowledged that some banking institutions were targeted in cyber and physical attacks, according to state media, but authorities have not confirmed any systemic theft of deposits or widespread account losses.

The report also cited activists and opposition figures who say authorities have expanded the use of legal and security mechanisms to freeze or confiscate assets of individuals accused of cooperation with foreign adversaries. These claims could not be independently verified."

Again watching interviews from Ret LTCs, COLs, GENs, ADMs etc. on the news. It is clear Iran is bluffing, buying time, obfuscating, lying, etc. As I have said they can't be trusted.

They think with all the negativity from many in Congress, much of the media. Lack of support from NATO allies, the high cost of many items in the USA, the anti-POTUS riots, etc. etc. Iran believes they can wait the USA out.

The only thing Iran has left is the interdiction of the Strait of Hormuz. Their economy is a mess. 80% of Iran's population hates their radical islamist gov't.

They will continue to disagree with all the points of any peace agreement.

Eventually, sooner than later the US will no longer play their game. And as many of the US senior officers RET say. Kinetic operations will again start. Heavy strikes from all US assets. Elimination of the islamists will be severe.

Iran's islamic theocratic regime will no longer be a threat. Most will be dead or flee the country.

Comments about lack of US planning, JPCOA would have worked, etc. is denying the reality. Fueled more by Anti-POTUS, anti-US, etc. sentiment than anything else.

The US is letting this play out a little longer … as Iran's economy continues to be in dire conditions. The US has to be patient. No matter what anyone says this conflict has not been going very long. Three months is nothing …

The only way to end this is with kinetic action … Ending the threat to the region and the world …

Legion you can tell what 3 things are hurting them the worst, by what their biggest demands are.

1) Stopping Isreal from pounding Hezbollah into submission. (President should allow Israel to continue until Iran buckles… but he is not. 🙁).
2) The blockade. No getting around it hurting them. Their biggest demand to end it.
3) Money. They are getting desperate for it. As I pointed out, even raiding personal bank accounts to grab money. Arresting people as dissidents in order to confiscate their assets.

I know people don't want to hear this, but largest blame for what is happening in Iran today, are the Iranian people themselves. They brought this "beast" into being, willingly. Those who opposed it, ran away to foreign countries.

Agree completely …

Yes, no matter how some try to spin it. Iran is to blame. There and others of those here and elsewhere who really are basing their opinion primarily on bias, anti-POTUS, anti-US, etc. …

Yes, I think some of that creeps in. Or hits harder than it should. But there are also legitimate questions about how this is going. Some of the WH statements are bombastic and over the top. Negotiating tools? . POTUS rambles at times, appears to fall asleep, tweets incessantly, has a lot of non essential projects going at the same time. There will be a lot of criticism until the war reaches some sort of successful conclusion and economic issues at home are addressed. Imagine the shoe on the other foot, with a Dem taking the same road, and what would be said here.

Tort, I would have backed any president who had the Cajones to attack Iran, kill their top leaders, including the Ayatollah, bury their nukes, destroy their factories, destroy their Air Force and destroy their Navy. Payback that has been too long coming.

I'd rather pay higher prices for gas and commodities for a valid purpose, then the same for nebulous "green agendas" and "DEI agendas" and give aways.

I've already shown how gas has dropped here in just over a month.

Check out Indiana! I see as low as 2.99 in Richmond. There a red state governor attempted to help his citizens and dropped the state gas tax temporarily. A lead all governors should follow… but won't. (Looks like he also stole the Bears from Jamie Pritzker and Illinois.)

What about the job numbers?

"The U.S. economy added 172,000 jobs in May 2026, nearly doubling Wall Street's expectations."

"Upward Revisions: Prior months were updated higher, with March revised up to 214,000 and April adjusted upward to 179,000.Three-Month Strength: Job growth over the last three months has averaged 188,000 positions, a marked acceleration from early 2026 volatility."

Yes some summer stuff obviously part of it. But still no getting around it.

Another you ask?

Crime rates in the United States have fallen sharply during Donald Trump's second administration.

Preliminary FBI annual data released in May 2026 shows that violent crime dropped an estimated 9.3% nationwide from 2024 to 2025, continuing an aggressive downward trajectory into 2026.

Independent researchers from the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) project that when final data is fully tabulated, the national homicide rate for 2025 may prove to be the lowest recorded since 1900."
"
One more?

Ok

Our favorite.

"Decline in Border Encounters: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data show that daily southwest border apprehensions fell by roughly 95% compared to the peak numbers under the previous administration. Monthly southwest border encounters dropped from previous highs of thousands per day down to a sustained historical low averaging fewer than 9,000 per month."

""Zero Releases" Target Implemented: The administration has eliminated "catch-and-release". CBP reports a multi-month streak of releasing zero illegal migrants into the U.S. interior. Apprehended individuals are either immediately funneled into expedited deportation, held in expanded detention spaces, or subjected to a revived "Remain in Mexico" protocol."

"Massive Uptick in Removals: Federal figures indicate that since Trump returned to office, over 2.5 million undocumented individuals have left the U.S. via more than 600,000 formal deportations and an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 million self-deportations prompted by heightened enforcement."

Just imagine what dent would have been made if liberal judges, hired protesters and politicians of both parties did not interfere for political reasons and spite.

"The mind wobbles!" As "Kelly Bundy" used to say. 😉

Ok 2 more and I stop (I actually have quite the list). 🙂

"Physical Barriers and Technology: Assisted by funding from the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" reconciliation package, the administration has pushed contracts for 587 miles of border barrier. This includes traditional "smart walls," water barriers, secondary walls, and heavy reinforcement with concertina razor wire.Fentanyl and Interdiction Shift:

The White House claims fentanyl trafficking at the southwest land border dropped by 56% within the administration's first year. However, analysts note this tightening has forced transnational cartels to pivot, pushing 80% of drug smuggling attempts to maritime routes intercepted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard."

So yes I'm paying higher prices on some products and I would like to see them down. But I find ways around most of the food increases.

Some things related to home, I can't. But I'm am banking by the end of his term and as long as the other party does not grab either house of Congress. Things will be pretty good price wise by 2028.

If I want to see how bad things can become otherwise, I look no further than California currently or Virginia since the last election.

Before anyone flies into fits, the above was only a response to this:

"There will be a lot of criticism until the war reaches some sort of successful conclusion and economic issues at home are addressed. Imagine the shoe on the other foot, with a Dem taking the same road, and what would be said here."

Tort and I probably overlap somewhat.

Who is defending the Iranian regime, supporting nuclear proliferation, or rooting for the U.S. to fail? That is not really the disagreement.

The disagreement seems to be over strategy, duration, cost, and definition of success. We do need to consider how Iran will act and what cards it will play but that's not the same as rooting for them.

Legion's argument, if I understand it correctly, is essentially:

"Iran is badly weakened, buying time, bluffing, economically hurting, and eventually continued pressure plus kinetic action will break the regime or force capitulation."

Fair enough. That is a coherent theory of success.

But if that is the strategy, then I think it is reasonable to ask: How long is "eventually"? Six months? A year? Five years?

What specifically constitutes success? A dismantled nuclear program? Regime collapse? Open Hormuz? No missile capability? Permanent deterrence?

And what costs are we willing to absorb in:

* military expenditure,
* naval strain,
* munitions depletion,
* shipping disruption,
* higher energy prices,
* regional escalation,
* and reduced readiness elsewhere?

Those are not anti-POTUS or anti-U.S. questions. In fact, I would argue answering them protects the administration from something worse later: the accusation that tactical successes accumulated while the political objective gradually shifted.

Because history is full of conflicts where: "We are making progress" and "we know the enemy is weakening" were both true… right up until people started asking: "Wait — what exactly is the endpoint?"

I am not saying we are there. I am saying those questions are better asked in month three than year three.

Ans gas in my area is up 50% since the conflict began and I'm not pleased with that. I understand once our reserves are depleted, the prices will truly begin to soar.

Incavart77, thank you for quoting Legion.His point (as quoted) needs addressing.

Ralph's theory of success is certainly coherent but coherence isn't the same thing as evidence.

The weak point in the argument is the assumption that because Iran is under pressure, therefore the regime will eventually collapse or capitulate. History is littered with regimes that were economically crippled, internationally isolated, militarily weakened and yet remained in power for years or even decades.

"We are hurting them" and "they are about to break" are not the same proposition.

At present, the argument seems to rest heavily on the word "eventually." Eventually could mean six months, five years, or twenty years. Without some indication of what mechanism actually forces capitulation, it risks becoming unfalsifiable. Every setback can simply be explained away as proof that the enemy is weakening.

Iran's leaders may well have concluded they cannot defeat the United States militarily but that does not automatically mean they will surrender. Their alternative seems to be to absorb punishment, create disruption where they can and wait for political, economic or public pressure to erode Western resolve. That has been the strategy of many weaker powers facing stronger opponents.

In other words, Legion has outlined a theory of pressure. What he has not yet demonstrated is the causal link between pressure and the specific outcome he predicts. That is the part that currently looks more like optimism than analysis.

Fox News

"New details from Iran's top diplomat about the strike that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei provide some of the clearest evidence yet of the precision and strategy behind the joint U.S.-Israeli operation that launched Operation Epic Fury, counterterrorism experts said Sunday.

The account, revealed by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a new television interview, also highlights what analysts describe as a defining feature of President Donald Trump's national security doctrine: using a decapitation strike against a hostile regime while simultaneously creating an off-ramp to end the conflict.

"Well, the building we were sitting in was targeted, but the wing we were in remained intact while the other wing of the building was destroyed," Araghchi said in an interview that aired June 4 on the Lebanon-based, Hezbollah-backed Al Mayadeen television network.

While Araghchi survived the Feb. 28 strike because he was in a different wing of Khamenei's compound when the attack occurred, he went on to detail how Khamenei was in his office and how others survived.

Reviewing the original segment, counterterrorism expert Dr. Omar Mohammed told Fox News Digital that Araghchi's account confirms the operation targeted a specific section of the complex rather than flattening the entire site.

"In the Arabic version, Araghchi says he was in a different wing of the compound, briefing another official, and his wing survived while the leader's office was destroyed," Mohammed explained.

Araghchi also told the interviewer that he had an appointment that day with an official at the compound regarding the Geneva negotiations and that, based on the usual workflow, Khamenei "had to be present in his office."

Mohammed, director of the Antisemitism Research Initiative at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, added that if Araghchi's account is accurate, this was Iran's glaring acknowledgment of U.S. strategic capabilities.

"They did not flatten a building; they took one wing and left the one next to it standing. That is President Trump's whole doctrine in a single strike — he does not want a war of occupation, he wants to show the United States can reach the center of a hostile regime with precision and then offer it a way out," Mohammed said."

….
"
"Iran was handed the clearest message an adversary can get — we can reach your leader in his own office, and here is the off-ramp," Mohammed noted. "A rational state takes the exit. Tehran did the opposite. It fired on Israel, killed a civilian in Bahrain, struck Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and closed the Strait of Hormuz, setting off a global energy crisis. The surgical strike was American. The months-long war that followed was Iran's choice."
"
…
"
"The real story is not that Iran is strong," Mohammed continued. "It was shown the precision of American power and the door was held open, and it chose to widen the war instead."
"

Dear D… allow me to correct you…

" I would have backed any president who had the Cajones to attack Iran…"

"Cajones" in spanish is "Drawers" Where shirts, socks, etc. are stored…

"Cojones" are man "balls"…

Yust to said…

Armand

Cajones must be what they hid their Cojones in.

I don't always catch iPhone microphone misspellings. 😉

I don't know, Armand. Maybe it wasn't a call for courage at all. Maybe it was a demand for better furniture storage solutions.

I believe President Obama has an exquisite chest of Queen Ann drawers.

Inca77 I believe I have addressed your questions and comment on another thread here …

I.e.:

Regardless …

Iran cannot be allowed to have deployable Nukes.
That was the plan along … whether some know or understood that or not.

The current islamist regime in Iran has to be gone. No matter what if some thought regime change was in the classified OPLAN or not, etc. Again, as any with campaign in any war. Based on how the conflict develops, evolves, etc. The current situation on the ground at the pointy end of the spear may require modification.

The goal regardless of what some believed, etc. The only way to end Iran's islamists threat is removing them from the board. Which in turn means they won't have nukes.

The US and IDF have proven they can be very good at handling these islamists.

I and other of much higher pay grades expect the conflict to resume a full force …

Any other outcome other than removing Iran's islamist regime would be less than satisfactory.

The POTUS can't be reelected … I think he will or should do everything he and his admin can to ensure Iran's theocratic fanatics will no longer be a threat to the region, any many other places on the planet. Plus Iran's 80+% of their population that does not want to be under these islamist radicals with be free.

The islamists that don't die under US/IDF strikes, the ones who may escape, all the rest should be charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes, etc.

Frankly it would be better/cleaner, etc. if they all die in a maelstrom of multiple incoming ordinances from the US, IDF, any of the other nations within range of Iranian …

The problem is that this war increasingly looks planless, supportless, and improvised.

Again … the situation on the battlefield is evolving … None of us were in the Pentagon, etc. while this entire conflict was planned, activated, and control, etc.

How can one come up with an assessment that this operation is planless, supportless, improvised, etc. ? With the limited information that can be released during a state of conflict. We don't have the need to know … Nor do the islamists of Iran, or any other moslem terrorists, etc. They will probably find out sooner than later. And then it won't matter …

What exactly was the objective? Delay the nuclear program? Force a deal? Regime destabilization? Destroy missile capability? Restore deterrence? The goalposts seem to move every few weeks depending on what talking point is needed.

No the classified objectives, etc. will never be released while the conflict is ongoing. And may not even then.
Did the population of e.g. the UK and/or USA need to know where, how, when, why, etc. of any operations before, or during ?

Yesterday was D-Day, the Normandy Invasion. What did anyone other than those who had the need to know the details of any aspects of the operation?

They didn't …

What exactly was the objective? Delay the nuclear program? Force a deal? Regime destabilization? Destroy missile capability? Restore deterrence?

Why would anyone without the need to know should know more than that is released by the POTUS, Pentagon, etc. It is an active kinetic combat action.

The goalposts seem to move every few weeks depending on what talking point is needed.

Again … as the conflict evolves situation evolves. Whatever talking points are made public, may be as much of being disinformation than any other bit of information. That will not give away anything going on now or in the future. The enemy needs to know very little …

And we have seen with the caustic environment in DC, in Congress, in the media, etc. OPSEC is paramount, as it always is. However, this time the truth, the facts, etc. can't be given to many of those e.g. Congress. As since they hold the POTUS and his admin in such distain. Many of them can't be trusted. As they may cost US lives and interfere with the success of the operation …

These all seem simple concepts to me …

In other words, Legion has outlined a theory of pressure. What he has not yet demonstrated is the causal link between pressure and the specific outcome he predicts. That is the part that currently looks more like optimism than analysis.

A pressure campaign is exactly what many of higher rank are talking about. The more pressure applied with Iran's high losses, disrupted economy, loss of C3I, etc. will continue to put strain on everything they have and do.

If they do not break, they will certainly continue to weaken. Weakening a target is generally what is done to before an assault, etc. E.g. prep fires, CAS, etc. on an Objective/target. This is what is basically going on now, more or less.

The POTUS is giving them enough rope to hang themselves. But with religious fanatics they may need a push. In this case, resuming intense strikes of Iran's existing assets. Again, that may be coming much sooner than later.

Optimism ? What more proof is required than Iran's lack of any offensive action, that is more than a few drones, gunboats, missiles, etc.

Don't confuse optimism with confidence. Confidence based on experiences and training …

The fact everyone knows they are foot dragging, buying time, asking for ridiculous requests to be added to any agreement. Even the Paks are play along. And we know the Paks are not really our friends anyway …

Iran's remaining C3I has learned well from their Chicom allies. They are playing the long game … But we know that and we can play that too.

They see what is going on in Congress. They see the bloody infighting in the House and the Senate. Iran sees that as a positive sign. They are getting de facto support from some in Congress, the media, etc. They want to hold out at least until the Midterms. If things go their way.

The Congresses organization may change. Giving the one side that is anti-POTUS much more power. They may vote to end this and pull all our assets out. Which would signal victory for the islamists. And a major loss to many at least in the region.

Or they have talked of impeachment again. That would play into Iran's plans …

Members of our own gov't, elected and appointed are basically "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" some would say …

If the US has to leave the battlefield because of political decree. The islamists will declare they won.

And how many years will it be before the reconstituted islamists regime gets deployable nukes? 3yrs … 5yrs … 7yrs ?

If anyone doubts religious islamist fanatics will not use those nukes. Well they are optimistic … And that sort of thinking will get people killed … the wrong people …

Well maybe Israel got fed up with Iran after their attacks today.

"Israel launches airstrikes against Iran despite Trump's call for restraint

26 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
Iranian state media report blasts in Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, Karaj

Several explosions were heard in Tabriz, Tehran and Isfahan, Iran's state broadcaster reported.

The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News also reported blasts in Karaj in western Tehran as well as areas in western Iran.

39 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
Israeli military says its air force targeted western, central Iran

The Israeli military's spokesman says the country's Air Force attacked military targets in Western and Central Iran a short time ago.

50 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
Loud booms heard in Tehran – state media

Several loud booms were heard in Tehran early Monday, semi-official Mehr News reported."

May their missiles all find their targets. Maybe even a few more leaders.

@Legion 4

There's bound to be some overlap and repetition in our discussions because this conflict is becoming a daily ritual of the administration maintaining that we are on the cusp of negotiating a peace deal and yet few seem to be able to express its dimensions.

Your clarification that "The regime must go." Is at least that is a concrete objective rather than an implied one. But if regime removal is the actual strategic objective, then I think that raises even more—not fewer—questions.

Because that is not a limited punitive campaign, nor simply a mission to delay nuclear capability or degrade missile forces. That is regime change, and regime change is a very large undertaking with a very different set of assumptions, costs, risks, and timelines.

For example, what is the mechanism by which regime collapse is expected to occur?

1. Internal uprising?
2. Elite fragmentation?
3. Economic collapse?
4. Sustained airpower?
5. Covert support?
6. A negotiated exit?

As Ochoin pointed out, regimes that are economically crippled, and militarily weakened, can and do still remain in power for years or decades. And, in this case, Iran has a governmental system which is both fully vertically and horizontally integrated. Thus, regime change is not going to be an easy lift. Frankly, POTUS said in an interview today that he finds the current Ayatollah more rational than his father!

This is part of what leaves me confused about the moving strategic logic.

Legion has now stated the end state plainly: the current Islamist regime ultimately has to go because it cannot be trusted. But how does that square with the President's recent softer rhetoric toward the new Ayatollah?

Not long ago, the regime was portrayed as fundamentally unacceptable. More recently, the tone has shifted toward the new leadership being more rational, potentially workable, and someone we may be able to negotiate with.

Are we trying to negotiate a stable arrangement with this regime? Or are we pursuing a slow-motion regime change strategy under military pressure? Because those imply very different end states. One says: "We need a deal with a regime we can live with." The other says: "The regime itself is the problem and ultimately must go."

Maybe there is a bridge between those positions, but from the outside the objective increasingly feels like it shifts with circumstances. How do we distinguish an evolving strategy from evolving rhetoric? Blind faith? Is that what the most organized and powerful State in history boils down to? Isn't it the Iranians who are supposed to be the unblinking devotees of an all powerful leader?

I also think there is a distinction worth making here. We don't need to receive OPLANs or OPSEC matters. But in a representative system, asking for the political objective, strategic logic, acceptable costs, and conditions for success is not the same thing as demanding military secrets. And yes we keep chewing this over because we keep conflating tactical plans with political strategies. There is no reason to keep political strategies secret from the electorate.

Churchill did not announce D-Day landing sectors. Roosevelt did not release operational details. But citizens still broadly understood the political objective: Defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

That is different from asking: "What exactly are we trying to accomplish here, and how will we know when we are succeeding?" Because if the answer is ultimately "We continue until the regime collapses," then I think it is fair to ask the administration how long, at what cost, and under what theory of causation we believe collapse actually occurs, rather than allowing them a blank check to reinvent the conflict's aims whenever something isn't going their way.

D plus Ochoin… Big smile…

Armand

II Headlines

"Iran, Israel halt attacks after Trump demands immediate ceasefire
..
Iran to resume missile operations if Israel attacks Lebanon, MP says
…
Israel halts Iran strikes but rejects Iran's Lebanon ceasefire demand"

🤔

So both stopped. But Iran says it will start again if Israel fires on Hezbollah, (note they don't demand that Hezbollah not fire on Israel. 😏). Israel refuses to NOT retaliate (can you blame them?).

Now do you think Hezbollah will stay quiet? 🤫

Well if you said yes… don't go to Vegas

Times of Israel

"Three rockets were launched by Hezbollah at Israeli troops in southern Lebanon a short while ago, the military says.

The rocket fire triggered sirens in Kiryat Shmona and nearby communities on the border.

According to the military, two of the rockets were intercepted by air defenses, while the third struck near the forces."

Will Israel retaliate?

I know what I think. 💭

President Trump, it's time for some more Iranian urban renewal. Maybe some more leadership change by air. Force the Iranians to rebuild some outdated bridges and harbors. Build some NEW more GREEN oil extraction facilities. Replace those speed boats with Greener row and sailboats. Replace those guard gas guzzlers with horse drawn carts and camels for jeeps.

Probably shouldn't listen to me Mr. President. 😉

But if regime removal is the actual strategic objective, then I think that raises even more—not fewer—

Whether unstated, implied or overwise. As the situation has progressed … that seems to be the only realistic option. Based on what may, again senior Ret high ranking military leaders, etc. And again we don't know what they know. They have intel we may never see. And again … why should we.

I believe, the POTUS, Pentagon, etc. is basing their slower than many would like approach. Maybe be based on lessons learned in e.g. Iraq and even A'stan … As we saw in Venezuela.

We saw in Iraq by getting rid of all the former regime under Saddam only made things that much worse. I know some who were there. This was rapidly seen by those on the ground being a big error. Made by "Suits" not Boots"[A'stan was very similar] …

Patton ran into a something like this after WWII. When he was asked by the press, etc. Why he still had Nazis running the electric, water, trash collection, etc. He said, basically until there can be replacements found, etc. The Nazis with be running that infrastructure, etc.

Case in point again, Venezuela … No real regime change. We basically kept those in power. And just worked on modifying their "behavior".

Maybe that sort of thing is behind this current phase of limited ops. However, I do think there is more to it … more that we don't know … or need to know …

However, I think we know this sort of thing generally does not work with islamic fanatics, webbed to an archaic belief system. E.g. kind of like Imperial Japan … It was not in their mind set to surrender. So most fought to the end. Dying in the name of their god emperor.

It is somewhat easy to see the similarities between the two "skewed" "corrupted", etc. deeply embedded belief systems.

As well as I think the POTUS, et al do not want to destroy any more if Iran oil, etc. infrastructure. As whoever is left/becomes Iran's new regime. Their location and natural resources are critical to many nations who depend on all for that.

However, within a very short amount of time … the US and even the IDF could start a very heavy, very lethal, very destructive air and naval campaign along with Army long range missile and ADA support …

Plus does anyone want to leave the islamic lunatics in power to continue their ongoing horror show? Killing, raping, etc. their own people.

Does anyone think Iran will stop supporting the other islamic butchers allied to them ?

And even the POTUS said he knows to restart the offensive ops would cause more death and destruction, along with some CD.

It seems to me that is all pretty clear …

Plus does anyone here know more about fighting war, etc. than those Ret. senior military officers ? It appears all that "book learn'n" is fine. But those officers have hands on, on the ground experience. Along with their extensive training … going on for decades.

Again I was only an Army Infantry CPT, but it seems I pretty much understand what many of these LTCs, COLs, GENs, ADMs, etc. are saying. I had similar training and experience but on an much lower level. However, many of the concepts of the art and science of war remain basically the same.

So again who here has the intel these Ret senior officers do? Along with each having decades of the real-world experience …

For example, what is the mechanism by which regime collapse is expected to occur?

1. Internal uprising?
2. Elite fragmentation?
3. Economic collapse?
4. Sustained airpower?
5. Covert support?
6. A negotiated exit?

Again based on what we know and how it appears the situation has evolved, morphed, etc. Like it generally does in an conflict. IMO and again generally the Ret senior officers and intel assets …

These should occur concurrently or incrementally … Again based on the situation on the ground …

Internal uprising

Economic collapse

Sustained airpower

Covert support

There is no one solution … not a Yes & No question …

But we know[or should] how synergy works even on the battlefield …

As Ochoin pointed out, regimes that are economically crippled, and militarily weakened, can and do still remain in power for years or decades. And, in this case, Iran has a governmental system which is both fully vertically and horizontally integrated. Thus, regime change is not going to be an easy lift.

All this is known … by the US leadership … And they have OPLANs, Alternate and Supplemental CoAs, etc. Again as the situation on the ground evolves, it becomes clear what needs to occur to bring a successful end to this conflict. Against a murderous, barbaric, fanatical islamic regime. Based on this little quarter should be given nor expected. Massive amounts of firepower on critical, decisive, key, targets.

Again, like WWII Imperial Japan, these islamists lunatics do not plan of changing their god given goal. So again, they need to be removed from the battlefield. Once and for all … they benefit no one but themselves.

This is part of what leaves me confused about the moving strategic logic

I think discussed this … Based on current evolving situation … The only way to successfully end this conflict for good … It is required to remove these islamists with extreme violence, lethality, etc.

They don't deserve to live in a modern civilized world …

Does anyone not see that ?

Do what must be done based on the current evolving situation on the ground.

Legion I've made no secret of how I feel. Hit them again and again and again! Release the Israelis! Until their leaders truly feel the pain. The hardliners will only negotiate when you have a foot on their necks.

The Iranians have never cared about the pain they have inflicted since 79!

I sent the White House my views yesterday again. Do I believe they actually listen? …… 😂🤣

But at least I tried. 😉

102 days & no end in sight.

They shot down a helicopter (pilots survived and rescued 👍).

We will respond. Hopefully more than just a slap. 👋

……

"102 days & no end in sight."

Are the Australians fighting "offensively" in the conflict now? Are they sending money to the US to finance the conflict? Providing intelligence about the Iranians. Replenishing our expended weaponry. Did they rescue our pilots today?

(Web)
"No Offensive Action: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have explicitly ruled out sending ground troops, strike fighters, or providing offensive intelligence against Iranian territory."

So we should concern ourselves with his opinion of how long the conflict is taking or how it is being run? 🤔 Why? He Can't vote in our elections.

🤔 Well maybe, I can only "assume" that is the case. Strange things do happen in our elections in some areas. 😳

Strikes have been launched 5pm. According to statements: "proportional and defensive only".

from II

"3 minutes ago
US strikes hit naval bases, missile batteries in southern Iran – local media

The US airstrikes targeted Iran's Sirik and Jask naval bases, an air defense position in Bandar Abbas, coastal missile batteries in Minab and Qeshm, and the port of Qeshm, according to unofficial reports by local media in Hormozgan province.

7 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
Iran's Revolutionary Guard says it will soon deliver ‘heavy response'

The IRGC Aerospace Force said it would deliver a "heavy response" in the coming moments to what it called the enemy's hostile actions.

12 minutes ago
Blasts reported on Qeshm Island, Jask and Bandar Abbas

Iranian state media are reporting explosions on Qeshm Island and in the port city of Jask. Vahid Online also says it has received reports of blasts in Bandar Abbas."

OVI +1, +1, +1

Legion I've made no secret of how I feel. Hit them again and again and again! Release the Israelis!

I and many others agree. "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"

102 days & no end in sight.

Others see the end … just the biased, with limited knowledge how this type of conflict is fought. How it works out …

What difference does it make with the high attrition suffered by Iran's islamists? Was there ever an actual timeline ever mentioned. It will be 103 days soon and it will be over when Iran's islamists are no longer a threat … to anyone.

Get it … the war is ongoing … and no one here has the intel, experience, training, etc. To make any accurate assessments. Only pretty much come up with an opinion based on many things. Some just biased BS …

But no one is as capable as the high-ranking officers, etc. who are fighting this conflict …

OVI +1, +1, +1

Legion I've made no secret of how I feel. Hit them again and again and again! Release the Israelis!

I and many others agree. "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"

102 days & no end in sight.

Others see the end … just the biased, with limited knowledge how this type of conflict is fought. How it works out …

What difference does it make with the high attrition suffered by Iran's islamists? Was there ever an actual timeline ever mentioned. It will be 103 days soon and it will be over when Iran's islamists are no longer a threat … to anyone.

Get it … the war is ongoing … and no one here has the intel, experience, training, etc. To make any accurate assessments. Only pretty much come up with an opinion based on many things. Some just biased BS …

But no one here is as capable as the high-ranking officers, etc. as who are fighting this conflict …

Legion 👍

"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"

From II

"20 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS
Trump says Iran ‘took too long' to reach deal and must pay the price

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Iran had taken too long to negotiate a deal and would now "have to pay the price."

"They've taken too long to negotiate a deal that would have been great for them, now they will have to pay the price," he said in a post on Truth Social."

More patience than I have or feel was ever necessary. A lot more than they have ever deserved.

And thus no deal….we have repeated expressed well-deserved admiration for our very competent and professional military. This is not where the issues are.

102 days in.

No deal.

No visible end state.

No sign Iran thinks it has lost.

But apparently we are supposed to believe everything is unfolding according to some invisible master plan.

We are told negotiations are progressing. Then there is no deal. The new Ayatollah is "more rational." Then it is unconditional surrender. Then Iran "took too long" and now must pay the price.

Which is it?

Because from the outside this increasingly looks like policy by improvisation, where maximal demands take the place of skilled negotiation.

If the objective is regime collapse, then say so plainly. If the objective is a deal, what deal exactly? "Unconditional surrender" sounds like bravado unless occupation is on the table. How exactly is regime change supposed to occur? Do we have a proposal? Is there another form of government waiting in the wings to fill the vacuum?

If the strategy has become "apply pressure until something breaks," then we are already drifting toward the logic of an open-ended conflict: no clear end state, no measurable victory conditions, no off-ramp — just continued escalation and hope that eventually the enemy collapses.

And invoking secret OPLANs, unnamed generals, and "trust the process" is not an answer.

Yes many unclear statements. Since more than half the country disapproves, this will not get better over time unless there is a broad rational explanation of intentions and desired outcomes. No military secrets need be revealed.

If this was an imminent nuclear threat emergency… But then we hear that the nuke material cannot even be reached by Iran. So that was a non-starter or simply untrue for now.
Therefore Congress must exercise its Constitutional power to declare war. But we know it will not do so.

I would like someone to step up. Let the buck stop where it is supposed to. Say its regime change, probably the only way to win the strategic war. Just say it. Its inconceivable that such a massive military operation gives the appearance of…whatever. We have gone this far.

As much as I worried about who was running the show, I wanted Iran to finally be resolved once and for all, and I give Trump credit for trying, whatever his motives might be.

But as Dirty Harry once said, "When are you people gonna stop messin' around with this guy?"

No visible end state.

No sign Iran thinks it has lost.

We don't know that … do we ? We don't have the intel the US leadership does do we?

we are supposed to believe everything is unfolding according to some invisible master plan.

Do we know otherwise ? We know what the general strategic plan is and maybe how the current situation morphed the evolution of any plans. That often happens during a conflict … we know that.

Then Iran "took too long" and now must pay the price.

Basically that is what it comes down to at this point. They we have shown the carrot … they didn't take it … so now they get the stick. The Big Stick …

Remember we are not dealing with someone who is logical, reasonable, who wants to save their population's lives, etc. They only want to stay in power. And eventually restart their jihad based on their archaic version of a religion. That they and others like them are strongly wedded to … very strongly … To the death … They don't want peace … Nor do they want to live, either, it appears.

Because from the outside this increasingly looks like policy by improvisation, where maximal demands take the place of skilled negotiation.

"Skilled negotiation" at this point means the US would have to compromise with Iran's needs/wishes …

They want to keep nukes

They want to control the Persian Gulf

They want reparations

They want to support their islamic allies, e.g. Hezbollah …

They never mention the crimes they committed on their own people.

The art of the deal it is said in part is the ability to compromise … But for the US to give them any of those is not a compromise. It is capitulation to the #1 supporter of islamic terrorism and are moslem terrorists themselves.

Plus I think we all know the remains of Iran's islamist gov't are not going to do anything but fight to the death. E.g. IJFs during WWII …

If the objective is a deal, what deal exactly? "Unconditional surrender" sounds like bravado unless occupation is on the table. How exactly is regime change supposed to occur? Do we have a proposal? Is there another form of government waiting in the wings to fill the vacuum?

I'm sure all those are taken into consideration. And we out here don't know the answers. As well as we don't have the need to know. There are plans ongoing or waiting for the time to be correct before initiating, etc. I'm pretty sure …

But I'm not in the loop … I was not there while the planning and the mission was/is ongoing … Nor was anyone else here there either.

If the strategy has become "apply pressure until something breaks," then we are already drifting toward the logic of an open-ended conflict: no clear end state, no measurable victory conditions, no off-ramp — just continued escalation and hope that eventually the enemy collapses.

Again … you know all that how ? Again I'm pretty sure all those have been taken into consideration. Again, we don't know all the intel US gov't knows/has.

Just because some don't see this or maybe even understand it does not mean it is not ongoing or awaiting initiation.

And invoking secret OPLANs, unnamed generals, and "trust the process" is not an answer.

Well for the most part that is the reality. OPLANs in general are secret.

Unnamed Generals, etc. Well the list is long and I see and hear them everyday on FOX and Newsmax. Don't trust anything else I hear on other "media". I often invoke the words of Ret. GEN Kean, and others. I will make it a point to remember all their names I hear often. Regardless of their names, but I'm old but I'm pretty sure of what they said.

"Trust the process" is again in generally the reality … as again we don't know all the US Gov't knows. And we don't have the knowledge, training, experience that Ret GEN Kean, etc. have … and never will …

Look at history …

Did we know how in detail we were going to defeat the Axis in WWII? Was it said anywhere that when we reach Berlin or Tokyo then the war will be over ?

In reality initially the only ones to reach Berlin on the ground were our former allies the Russians. No one reached Tokyo by ground until after the war was over.

How much was known to the general public about Operation Torch? The invasions of Sicily, Normandy, PI, etc.? Did we publicly know about the A-Bombs ?

No because we didn't have the need to know. At least not at that time.

Today is no difference but with high-tech communications information can travel so much faster than ever before. That makes OPSEC, news releases, etc. are even more important …

And that makes all the difference …

Isn't funny how their views dramatically change when they hate the man in office? 😏

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has historically opposed the JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal), famously breaking with President Barack Obama to vote against the 2015 agreement. However, he later criticized the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the pact in 2018, arguing that multilateral diplomacy was a better path forward. [1, 2]

The 2015 Vote and Opposition
In August 2015, Schumer announced he would vote against the JCPOA following deep analysis. He outlined several key objections: [1, 2, 3]
* Weak Inspections: He argued that the 24-day delay for inspections and the joint-commission approval process would allow Iran to hide non-radioactive nuclear work. [1]
* Post-10-Year Sunset: Schumer was concerned that after the initial 10-15 years, Iran would emerge as a much stronger financial and military power while remaining a "nuclear threshold state". [1, 2]
* Sanctions Relief: He believed the billions of dollars in sanctions relief would be funneled by the Iranian regime into proxy groups and terrorism in the Middle East."

Funny, all his objections are the same as we who opposed it as well, have expressed.

Never thought I say this…. But Chuck was initially right.

@ Legion 4

The question is much simpler than access to classified plans: What is the political objective? Those are not the same thing.

WWII is actually a good example of the distinction. The public did not know invasion dates, bomb targets, or operational details. But people broadly understood the political objective: Defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Likewise in the Cold War: Contain Soviet expansion.

Nobody needed the classified details to understand the end state.

By contrast, 102 days in, I still cannot tell whether the objective here is:

* a deal,
* nuclear rollback,
* restored deterrence,
* regime collapse
* unconditional surrender,
* or simply indefinite pressure until something breaks.

That is not an OPSEC question, that is a strategy question.

And "we don't know because the government knows more than us" is not really an answer in a representative system. Otherwise any criticism of any war at any stage becomes impossible because the response is always:

"Trust the people with the classified information."

Maybe they do have a coherent strategy; does that include claiming that Iran is completely defeated and then having to restart the hot war?

And if the publicly articulated objective keeps changing, people are going to start asking whether the plan evolved intelligently or whether events are driving policy more than policy is driving events.

Right now, it looks like the administration is caught in a situation where it can't quite get what it wants from a defeated enemy. You have to ask yourself how that could be?

Additionally, with an alien thinking, dangerous enemy like the Iranian regime, who knows what desperate measures they may resort to. That makes it even more worrisome that we can't wrap this up.

Which makes me ask, what would I do if I were in Iran's situation? Maybe they've decided to fight to the bitter end taking everyone down with them. Isn't that what some have said on here, that they launch nuked the second they get them? Maybe they've come up with a similar non nukes strat? At this point, they seem very content to launch a few missiles, blockade shipping and generally disrupt the global economy. In the end, who is that hurting more?

I don't know, POTUS said yesterday that Iran was totally defeated and they had no cards left to play. Thus, I expect peace to come in a couple of days…

Legion 👍

"55 mins ago

Trump says US will be 'attacking' Iran, wants a 'meaningful' deal
President Donald Trump said the U.S. will continue "attacking" Iran on Wednesday, saying the U.S. will only accept a "meaningful" peace deal.

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, saying the U.S. will continue retaliating against Iran after it shot down a U.S. Apache helicopter this week.

"We hit them hard yesterday and we're going to hit them hard again today," Trump said.

"I've been working with Iran for a number of months and they should sign that deal," he said. "We want a deal that's meaningful. We want a deal that works. We don't want to just have a Barack Hussein Obama deal, a JCPOA, the worst deal."
"

Legion any thoughts on that drone rescuing the pilots. Pretty impressive.

🤔

"statements made by President Barack Obama regarding the conflict in Libya primarily focuses on the shifting justification for the 2011 military intervention and the initial, inaccurate intelligence narrative following the 2012 Benghazi attack. [, 2]

While the administration maintained its statements were based on the best intelligence available at the time, critics, congressional investigations, and subsequent foreign policy analyses identified several key areas where the information provided to the public proved to be misleading or false. [1]

1. The Purpose of the 2011 Intervention
* The Claim: In his March 2011 address to the nation, Obama stated that the military objective was strictly humanitarian—to enforce a UN no-fly zone and protect civilians in Benghazi from an imminent massacre by Muammar Gaddafi's forces. He explicitly ruled out regime change, stating that broadening the mission to bring down Gaddafi would be a mistake. [1, 2]
* The Reality: Despite the public focus on civilian protection, the NATO-led coalition quickly shifted to providing direct close-air support to rebel forces, effectively acting as the air wing for the opposition. This material support directly enabled the overthrow and ultimate killing of Gaddafi. Critics argued that the administration used the humanitarian mandate as a pretext for regime change, a goal that exceeded the authorized UN resolution. [1]

2. The Nature of the Libyan Opposition
* The Claim: The administration characterized the anti-Gaddafi rebels as moderate, pro-democracy forces yearning for freedom and basic human rights. [1]
* The Reality: Subsequent intelligence assessments and congressional reports revealed that the opposition was deeply fractured. It included heavily armed tribal militias and extremist factions, including fighters linked to al-Qaeda. The assumption that a stable democracy would naturally form once Gaddafi was removed proved entirely false, leading to what Obama later privately called a "mess" and publicly cited as the "worst mistake" of his presidency—the failure to plan for the day after the regime fell. [1, 2, 3]

3. The 2012 Benghazi Attack Narrative
* The Claim: Following the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi—which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans—the administration initially blamed the violence on a spontaneous protest. Officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice, stated the attack arose textually out of a reaction to an inflammatory, anti-Islamic internet video. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
* The Reality: It was later established that there was no spontaneous protest at the compound. The assault was a heavily armed, pre-planned terrorist attack carried out by an al-Qaeda-affiliated group. Congressional investigations revealed that the State Department and intelligence agencies had received multiple warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and previous threats against the compound, contradicting the narrative that the attack was an unpredictable, random riot. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"

😱

Well this sends a chill up my leg… just like Chris M. 😉

"President Barack Obama's stated initial objective in Libya was strictly humanitarian protection and the enforcement of a no-fly zone, while his final objective evolved into facilitating the permanent departure of Muammar Gaddafi from power. [1, 2, 3]
Although the administration officially maintained that "regime change" was not the explicit mandate of the military campaign, the operation's goals functionally changed as the war progressed. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Stated Initial Objective
When the United States and its NATO allies initiated military intervention in March 2011, President Obama stated that the exclusive mission of the armed forces was to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The specified objectives were to: [1, 2, 3, 4]
* Protect Libyan civilians from immediate danger and brutality from government forces.
* Establish a no-fly zone over the country to halt the regime's attacks from the air.
* Avert a looming humanitarian catastrophe in rebel-held cities like Benghazi, where Gaddafi had threatened to show "no mercy". [1, 2, 3]
During his Address to the Nation on March 28, 2011, Obama flatly rejected an initial military mandate for regime change. He argued that broadening the scope to forcefully overthrow Gaddafi would splinter the international coalition, require American ground troops, and repeat the costly mistakes of the Iraq War. [1, 2]

Stated Final Objective
By October 2011, as the war drew to a close and Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces, the objective had explicitly shifted. The ultimate goals at the end of the intervention were to: [1, 2]
* Ensure the complete removal of Gaddafi and his inner circle from power.
* Transfer governing authority entirely to the opposition's National Transitional Council (NTC).
* Support the transition of Libya toward a unified, democratic state. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Did the Objective Change?
Yes, the objective experienced significant "mission creep". [1]
While President Obama initially separated the military objective (civilian protection) from the political objective (Gaddafi stepping down), that line quickly blurred. NATO air operations rapidly expanded beyond defensive maneuvers to actively striking Gaddafi's command structures, heavy armor, and retreating ground troops. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The administration eventually tied the conclusion of the military campaign directly to Gaddafi's removal, recognizing that civilians could never be truly "protected" as long as he maintained control over any part of the country. In later years, Obama famously cited the failure to properly plan for the aftermath of Gaddafi's fall as the "worst mistake" of his presidency."

The Great and Powerful Wizard lied to us!? Say it ain't so! 😳

And one more…

"The 2011 NATO-led military campaign in Libya authorized by President Barack Obama lasted for 226 days."

Was it successful?

5 pm (est) seems to be the time

"US forces began additional strikes against multiple targets in Iran – CENTCOM"

Protracted Iran-War Parleys: Is It Part of U.S. Strategy?

"Throughout history, a siege usually ended in surrender only when the defenders ran out of food and water. Till then, it was more expensive for the attackers to get close to the fort walls. Something similar is playing out in the Iran war; the most important factor holding Trump back from resuming attacks on Iran is the cost of Iran's attacks on U.S. allies in that neighbourhood. Trump has no antidote to that threat of unacceptable damage to oil, gas, and water infrastructure in those countries. It is perhaps in this context that the apparently interminable delays in negotiating a deal have to be seen.

Is Trump deliberately delaying a deal to bring Iran to an economically and logistically weak state where it has no option but to drop insistence on some of the so-called "red lines"? Three of these lines are very obvious; not surrendering the already enriched uranium with the enrichment facilities, control over the Strait of Hormuz and sanctions relief. At present, only the last two appear to be somewhat negotiable. The first one is considered by the theocracy as contrary to affirmation of its sovereignty and consequently tantamount to the loss of legitimacy of the regime…"

link

The Strategic Price of Waiting: Iran, Time, and the Erosion of Deterrence

"The hardest lesson in strategy is that time is not neutral. It is a resource, and someone is always using it. In the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, time has become a weapon—one Tehran wields with growing sophistication, while the United States and its allies continue to treat delay as prudence rather than as risk. The result is a widening gap between Iran's capabilities and Western political will, a gap that history suggests will eventually be closed not by diplomacy but by crisis.

This is not an argument about whether war with Iran is desirable. It is a sober assessment that the current trajectory—incremental Iranian nuclear advances, expanding regional aggression through proxies, and episodic Western responses—systematically raises the eventual cost of confrontation. The choice is not between "war now" and "peace later," but between confronting a weaker Iran under conditions of relative Western initiative or a stronger Iran under conditions of Iranian initiative and global vulnerability…"

link

Armand

Obama has said Libya was his worst mistake, 35th.