"Is it over?" Topic

Tort, these people sign up with the military knowing they may be in harms way. It is the sad hazard of the profession. If not for the "chance" of a war, a military would be unnecessary.

Same with police and fire.

I hope these are safe, but doubt it.

Today:

"A U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base in Kern County, California, on Monday, officials said."

Should we stop training flights because the crews could be harms way?

A crew of a Stratofortress is five. The total dead in Iran is 13. We "MAY" just have lost almost half the amount of the Iran conflict in one bomber training flight…. For much less of an objective.

As far as involving Obama, well he involved himself yesterday and today. So fair game.

"Former President Barack Obama has expressed doubt that Donald Trump's newly negotiated agreement with Iran will differ significantly from past diplomacy efforts. Obama stated it is "doubtful" the new deal will be a vast improvement over the 2015 accord his administration originally put in place"

As I said days back on this thread:

"Will I think it's tough enough? Doubtful. I wouldn't have been happy unless a foot was on the head of the last radical fundamentalist Muslim leader in Iran as they signed the treaty in their own blood 🩸 and afterward, the sword came down on his neck.

But I've made no secret of how I feel about them.

No one will probably be happy on all sides and sometimes those are the best treaties."

I don't like a ceasefire again with a 60 day negotiation period to finalize. (at least what I hear, if anyone can believe what they hear anymore).

But right now and until Friday… maybe. We know nothing final.

And Israel and Hezbollah are the bulls still in the China store. Unpredictable. Hezbollah attacks, Israel will respond. I'd expect nothing less

They are even split in Iran

"Iranian newspapers and digital outlets split sharply over the emerging US-Iran memorandum, with hardliners denouncing it as retreat and pro-diplomacy outlets framing it as a system-backed path to end the war and ease economic pressure."

…

"Kayhan, the hardline conservative daily, adopted a tone of open opposition, portraying the agreement as diplomatic capitulation under Western pressure and breaking with the official state narrative of victory.

"Surrendering to the Great Satan under the guise of an ‘antidote' or regional de-escalation is a betrayal of our long-standing resistance," Kayhan wrote.

"The historical track record shows that retreating before American demands never guarantees peace; it only invites further exploitation. This administration is repeating past blunders, turning a blind eye to our ultimate red lines.""

Didn't "Australiadamus" say that Iran had been the victor? They must not be listening to his podcasts. 🤔

Unfortunately 8 dead in the crash.

If the USA declares peace and walks away Isreal might be inclined to bomb them into oblivion anyway…

DG always a very valid chance.

The Case Against Another Iran Deal

"…Critics will rightly ask how such a campaign could be executed. While I have outlined detailed operational approaches in prior op-eds, the core strategic argument here is straightforward: we must weigh the risks of action against the mounting, compounding perils of inaction. History contains examples of unintended consequences and difficult post-conflict transitions. Those risks are real and cannot be ignored. Yet the status quo and the deal-making alternative carry their own accumulating costs: repeated cycles of escalation, sustained support for proxy networks that attack U.S. interests and partners, a nuclear program that inches closer to weapons capability during periods of relaxed pressure, and the steady erosion of U.S. credibility as Iran learns that American commitments are time-limited. The question is not whether action carries risk, but whether the risks of continued half-measures are lower or higher over time.

A decisive regime change approach would break this pattern. As I have argued previously, such a campaign must be executed with overwhelming speed and finality rather than incremental pressure. Unlike in Iraq, where regime change was pursued largely as a means to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, or in Afghanistan, where it followed from the primary goal of destroying Al Qaeda's sanctuary, preventing a nuclear-armed Iran may require regime change as the central objective rather than a secondary consequence. Only by removing the current regime can the United States eliminate the actor that has consistently chosen confrontation over integration, end the need for perpetual verification against a party with every incentive to cheat, reduce the leverage that China and Russia gain from an anti-American Iran, and free U.S. policy from the requirement of perfect consistency across administrations.

The choice is not between perfect outcomes and imperfect ones. It is between a strategy that has repeatedly produced recurring crises and one that confronts the fundamental driver of those crises. The evidence from decades of engagement, pressure, and limited military action points to the same conclusion: as long as the Islamic Republic in its current ideological form remains in power in Tehran, the United States will face the same choices, the same violations, and the same external complications. Only by changing the regime can the cycle itself be broken. While there is hope that any agreement now under discussion could mark the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, history suggests that durable progress will require addressing the regime itself rather than relying on another temporary framework."

link

Israelis denounce Trump's deal with Iran

"A "catastrophe." A "bad deal." An agreement that "throws a lifeline to the murderous regime in Tehran."

Among Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's supporters and critics alike, in the media and on social media, the mood was clear as Israelis woke up Monday to news of a peace agreement between the United States and Iran: President Donald Trump's deal is not one that many in Israel like. Iran, they say, will remain a threat.

The question now is whether Trump's deal is one that Netanyahu will stomach — or one he will seek to derail. Trump in brief, expletive-punctuated interviews Sunday already accused the Israeli leader of jeopardizing the accord…"

link

Armand

Trust but Verify -- AND, carefully monitor their military reconsitution and plan for a "mow the grass" campaign when Iran violates the agreement…and then do it. They get a warning and a deadline, and then boom to leadership and military.

After some thorough smacking, ask Pakistan and Quatar if they'd like to broker another deal with whomever is left in charge in Iran.

Repeat as needed.

Legion, don't feel you have to address the prophecies of "Australiadamus". They are most times wrong and are made up more of deep rooted dislike of our leader and of the United States, then of prophesy.

I agree ! Those comments are generally wrong and not by a little …

I repeat … GEN USAF RET. Blain Holt : [paraphrasing] "The USA holds all the cards" … He's US GEN …you are not … nor am I … But I understand better than some about what he and other senior officers are saying. A GEN's/ADM's rank pretty much trump armchair history readers on TMP … Really don't care how many books one reads in this case.

OVI +1

SB +1

If the USA declares peace and walks away Isreal might be inclined to bomb them into oblivion anyway…

I think that is may be what happens in the long run.

I believe again Iran won't follow the agreement. Sooner or later … The US will do what has to be done … that should have been done a long time ago. Remove Iran's islamist leaders.

There is a split between the IRGC, Basji, radicals and the rest of Iran gov't which is radical but not as bad as the IRGC, etc.

Neither really should be left in charge or even alive.

Didn't "Australiadamus" say that Iran had been the victor? They must not be listening to his podcasts.

I don't think he listens to anyone … which is his right.

Bottom line many can't or don't want to see it. But we are generally in a better position now than 3 months ago. Iran's nuclear quest is pretty much gone. Their assets and leaders are mostly severely attrited.

these people sign up with the military knowing they may be in harms way. It is the sad hazard of the profession. If not for the "chance" of a war, a military would be unnecessary.

I hope these are safe,

Yes very true … there is no draft, no one is forced to join, etc. And in no way is the USA wasting military lives. We are not the Russians or Chicoms.

Every move, every decision, etc. is thought thru, planned, SOPs developed, etc. Generally everything done is to mitigate our losses to as close to 0 as possible. While the enemy have to suffer max damage. Very high losses in personnel and equipment.

As well as accidents in training sadly happen … So even when not in a conflict, members of the Armed Forces are injured or even die. On almost a daily basis the US Armed Forces are doing hard, dangerous, tasks that require some level of risk. Some know what I am talking about …

Again, no one is criticizing the military's role in executing the orders of the CinC.
And nobody is saying that we have access to info or the expertise to explain these orders or responses to outcomes. The professionalism is of the highest order. Retired officers paid to assess have much to offer, even minus access to intel.

The issue is whether the larger concept of going to war as an instrument of foreign policy was the best choice. The subtext is about whether a POTUS should be able to avoid accountability for his orders and actions for an extended period after a reasonable time for emergency response has passed.

I cannot imagine the military not advising the POTUS on the ramifications and possibilities regarding the Straits, as one example. But I have no expertise or intel. Can I make an assumption based on years of reading, following news, and pondering…and maybe some common sense? This lets me form an opinion. Even with the Straits now open, the negative economic impact will continue to ripple through the global economy.

Did we get what we wanted? Are we better off? The military scorecard is not the whole picture. Those successes are part of the answer. We offer our opinions, not hard intel and current expertise based on inside knowledge. We know that. Attacking Iran, or "kinetic action" in today's euphemistic inside jargon, is a means to an end. Are we there yet, and where is "there"?

Legion and SB +1

I assume you both saw another major assassination plot thwarted. With drones and snipers at UFC event. First arrest in Cincinnati.

Never has been anything like these in my lifetime up until now. So many in so short of time. This time also and mainly targeting supporters of the President.

SB

"Trust but Verify -- AND, carefully monitor their military reconsitution and plan for a "mow the grass" campaign when Iran violates the agreement…and then do it. They get a warning and a deadline, and then boom to leadership and military.

After some thorough smacking, ask Pakistan and Quatar if they'd like to broker another deal with whomever is left in charge in Iran.

Repeat as needed."

Exactly what I have said from day one! That is how you should handle all violent radical fundamentalist Muslims everywhere, if they perpetrate violence themselves or through proxies.

Hopefully our current leader understands that. Few of our previous did! Will the future?

Only Trump and Ronald Reagan attacked Iran directly. Obama and Israel did do an affective cyber attack. (See I said something good about Barrack. 😉 That is my second in 6 or 7 months.).

Tort my friend.

"Are we better off?"

I'd say well could not possibly be worse off. They at least currently have no access to nukes. Before we attacked, Iran was able to supply their proxies with weapons and loads of money at will. Currently only Hezbollah seems to have any real capacity to do so (and I believe they were on their last legs based on Irans constant demands). Iran was having a field day building up pretty much anything.

They had attacked us directly or through proxies since 79, pretty much with impunity for themselves.

This slap was long long long overdue.

I doubt any of us on either side will be happy with the current settlement. But I agree with SB and Legion on how this needs be handled in the future.

At some point their leaders will crawl out into the light again. If they don't behave…. Israel and the U.S. 💥 ☠️. They can than join their 50 plus brothers. 😏

"Did we get what we wanted? Are we better off?

We still don't know the full terms of the deal, which is suspicious in itself. But judged against America's stated objectives, at best, it looks more like a compromise than a victory.

If Iran keeps its regime, retains nuclear capability, preserves its proxies, controls Hormuz (Service fees!!) and receives economic concessions, it's hard to call this a clear American victory. Or, indeed, any sort of victory no matter how you try to spin it.

"But judged against America's stated objectives, "

Please print those stated objectives.., from an official government US military source (not undisclosed sources 😉) or the official White House source. Not the MSM, anonymous sources or the chatter of any politician. For sure NOT overseas sources! 🤣

I've been saving them for a rainy day. 🌧️

No Nuclear weapons was one. Eventual access to the nuclear dust and its obliteration is one. See I helped you with two. All countries involved agree they can't access either one of the above.

That in itself is a victory. I'm sure most of the doubters will disagree. But I expect nothing less.

As far as the new mass assassination and killing event, it sounds like another domestic attempt.

The FBI first learned of the threat on June 10 and worked with partners to secure probable cause for an arrest in Cincinnati, where one suspect was taken into custody. Court documents identified the suspect as 19-year-old Tycen Proper.

Two others, identified as Bryan Omar Roa and Michael Alan Thomas, were arrested in California for alleged involvement in the plot. Both men were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. They appeared in court on Monday in Riverside.

Other suspects were arrested in Missouri and Nebraska. Multiple sources told Fox News that those in custody are American citizens, and a foreign nexus was not involved."

….

"One suspect allegedly told investigators the goal was to target "capitalist elites," "billionaires" or politicians who received donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

We still don't know the full terms of the deal, which is suspicious in itself. But judged against America's stated objectives, at best, it looks more like a compromise than a victory.

It does feel that way, though on the record the Trump Admin's stated goals did not include regime change. Stated goals were to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure, and attrit and destroy its power projection capabilities – missiles, drones, etc.

I think Israel over-sold the regime change issue, that was their focus, and they failed. The street uprisings did not happen -- the mass slaughter the month before deterrred them… a mass slaughter the "Human rights" Western liberals essentially defended by siding with the Iranian regime against the US and Israel.

The Iranian die hards would rather rule over ashes than lose power.

So I suspect, again, we'll have to mow the grass. Repeatedly.

@Ochoin

I too am becoming increasingly confused as to what success is supposed to mean anymore or if there was ever a clear plan/purpose to this conflict.

At various points the administration's stated objective has apparently been:

no nukes,

no WMDs,

no enrichment,

reopen Hormuz,

stop proxy support,

restore deterrence,

regime change,

"finish the job,"

Unconditional surrender,

or simply "mow the grass" indefinitely.

Those are not interchangeable objectives.

And the irony is that many of the strongest supporters of the war now seem to be conceding the core criticism while arguing against it. If Iran cannot be trusted…If any agreement is merely stalling…If regime change is the only durable solution…If military strikes will inevitably have to resume…If we are discussing repeated "mow the grass" campaigns every few years…Then what exactly are we calling success here and have we been initially frustrated in our purpose?

And respectfully, invoking retired generals as though rank substitutes for argument is not terribly persuasive. Highly credentialed military leaders supported Vietnam escalation. Highly credentialed military leaders supported Iraq. Highly credentialed intelligence professionals supported WMD assessments that proved badly flawed. Experience matters but: "important people believe this" is not, by itself, proof of strategic wisdom.

We should discuss what "mow the grass" actually means when translated from slogan into policy. For Israel, a small country facing immediate border threats, one can at least understand the logic, even if one disagrees with it. For a superpower and a liberal democracy, however, "repeat as needed forever" strikes me as a remarkably bleak and morally thin strategic vision. Especially when the implied logic becomes: "there is no permanent answer, therefore periodic force forever," A superpower should aspire to something more sophisticated than: "hit them again every few years."

"liberal democracy"?

Since when or ever?

We have never been a democracy or were planned as such.

Liberal? Only in some ### dreams. God help us if we become such, because we will no longer be either a democratic republic, nor even a "democracy", for long.

I would add that I have seen a number of retired top generals and admirals that have either opposed the war or are highly confused over what we have achieved. The military is not unified behind this conflict.

I cannot imagine the military not advising the POTUS on the ramifications and possibilities regarding the Straits,

No one said they didn't … But the POTUS still is the CinC …

But I have no expertise or intel.

I have some, I had a TS clearance long ago. And in many cases classified intel is very compartmentalized. Only those who need to know … know …

and maybe some common sense?

In many/most cases yes … common sense is always in the mix. However, without knowing all the intel that is available. What seems like common sense may not be if only having limited intel.

Was Operations Mincemeat, Overlord, etc. publicly known ? Or Rochefort's plan for ID'ing how the intel was gathered to know if the IJFs' were going to attack Midway ?

Did we get what we wanted? Are we better off? The military scorecard is not the whole picture. Those successes are part of the answer.

Yes but military success is how to get to where we want. As it brought the North Vietnamese to the table. AS it did with Iran's remaining leadership.

We offer our opinions, not hard intel and current expertise based on inside knowledge. We know that.

Yes we do know all that … However, one is free to state their opinion as well as another is free to disagree with it. We normally explain, mention, etc. why we have that opinion. And/or how/why another opinion is incorrect …

Attacking Iran, or "kinetic action" in today's euphemistic inside jargon, is a means to an end. Are we there yet, and where is "there"?

Yes kinetic action generally means blowing things up, breaking stuff, etc. And yes, it is a means to an end.

A campaign is a series of operations at strategic, operational and tactical levels. With the same overall objective. Was Overlord the last battle to be fought in the ETO ? No … so many other battles/campaigns, etc. had to be fought/occur before we got as you posted to "there". And obviously we are not there … yet …

I'd say well could not possibly be worse off.

Agreed … just compare the solutions of previous POTUS and their admins. No need to mention names … we know … or should …

We still don't know the full terms of the deal, which is suspicious in itself. But judged against America's stated objectives, at best, it looks more like a compromise than a victory.

How can one say that without knowing more about the "deal"? From what I have heard with the list of the objectives of that deal. The US is compromising nothing … Iran's leaders are compromising. But as we know deeds not words is the measure of the effectiveness of this "deal" …

And frankly as is often said … you cannot trust Iran's islamists. They will sign and nod. Then do what they want.

And unlike Obama and Biden no US taxpayer $ will be given to Iran. Now other nations in the region can and probably will. To go to rebuilding Iran's infrastructure. So their assets once again can be used by many that rely on those in the world. Note: the USA is not one of those …

If Iran keeps its regime, retains nuclear capability, preserves its proxies, controls Hormuz (Service fees!!) and receives economic concessions, it's hard to call this a clear American victory. Or, indeed, any sort of victory no matter how you try to spin it.

If has been clearly stated that that outcome is not what will happen. Note: it won't be the same regime that they started out with. The IRGC will not want to play ball anyway. Even if some of Iran's islamists and their equipment is no longer around.

It has also been made clear … If Iran violates any of the requirements outlined. They will be stuck again … as often as needed. However, the US will be much more determined to clean out the islamists, etc. if strikes go in again. And I believe sooner or later more strikes/kinetic actions will be reinitiated.

I disagree as usual with your comments/opinions … again …

I too am becoming increasingly confused as to what success is supposed to mean anymore or if there was ever a clear plan/purpose to this conflict.

That is your opinion … and I cannot change it.

And respectfully, invoking retired generals as though rank substitutes for argument is not terribly persuasive. Highly credentialed military leaders supported Vietnam escalation. Highly credentialed military leaders supported Iraq. Highly credentialed intelligence professionals supported WMD assessments that proved badly flawed. Experience matters but: "important people believe this" is not, by itself, proof of strategic wisdom.

Well historically not all the senior officers agreed. E.g. Longstreet and Lee at Gettysburg.

I listen to what all senior officers have to say. And base my comments on what I know historically, my past training and experiences, etc.

If one does not at least listen what the GENs, ADMs, etc. have to say what else can one really base their comments on. Comments from the information we know. But that is not all of the intel. So one can comment all they want. Again I have posted how and what I believe.

I can say "strategic wisdom" from senior officers is a good place to start. Then one can agree or disagree.

I will again take those senior officers' words over pretty much anyone here … I feel no need to apologize … to me that is common sense …

I would add that I have seen a number of retired top generals and admirals that have either opposed the war or are highly confused over what we have achieved. The military is not unified behind this conflict.

Yes, I know and have heard all that … But again, I said how and why I came to the comments I have posted here. I don't have to agree with everything a senior officer said. God knows even as just an 0-3. I'm sure my troops both officer. NCO and enlisted didn't always agree with all my decisions … As I didn't always agree with all the decisions the officers who out ranked me made.

As far as the new mass assassination and killing event, it sounds like another domestic attempt.

Yes so far it appears to me and others it was domestic terrorism. Some are in custody now will other to follow. They will be charged with a number of crimes. And most likely "go up river" for a very long time … Catch and release is for fish, not hard-core criminals … "Book'm Dano!" …

Still waiting for the "official" goals. I even gave you two Och.

Especially when the implied logic becomes: "there is no permanent answer, therefore periodic force forever," A superpower should aspire to something more sophisticated than: "hit them again every few years."

It's not like you write a "bomb Iran" reminder on your calendar – look, it's Tuesday, flush the bombers! That's not the strategy, it would be tied to actions. If Iran violates the agreement you have escalating penalties and I would argue, a *short* time between refusal to comply with the agreement and blowing up more Iranian regime members and military sites until they get back into compliance.

I think even after Friday, we will only get an opening of trade both ways again and an agreement to negotiate a final agreement in 60 days, to include the dust as part of it. Money will be leaked to Iran as they comply with terms.

Meanwhile the peace negotiators in Iran will be trying to keep the Republican guard in tow. The U.S. will be attempting the same with Israel.

Will they both succeed? Will Hezbollah throw a wrench in it all? Time will tell.

So we all will be able to claim whatever we want.

There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. IRAN WILL HAVE A GREAT FUTURE. "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)." Thank you for your attention to this matter!

It seems we are a far bit off from early March. Of course, there will be those who will perform mental gymnastics to explain to the rest of us how this is nothing but a brilliant victory to make America great again. Get those brains stretching boys…I will grab my popcorn.

No gymnastics necessary. Normal Trump Hyperbole.

Like:

"a whole civilization will die tonight"
"Open the in' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell".
"I'd like to see Canada become our 51st state,"
Greenland:
"One way or another we're gonna get it"

One can believe him, or not. But most of the time I would advise caution.

Want more:

"If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

"No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

"Not even a smidgen of corruption."

"…there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America—there is the United States of America A More Perfect Union."

"Inflation was 9% when I came to office."

"I got arrested while protesting in favor of desegregation."

"I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings."

Al-Qaeda is gone. None of it is back in Afghanistan."

Oh sorry! Those were other Presidents and were NOT hyperbole. My bad. 😣

Like I said, I've got the rest of the real goals.

More "art of the deal", pumping in money to Iran for free passage of Qatari tankers while you are "at war" with them but not really "at war" with them:

link

Completely unrelated but I know some on this thread mentioned the reflecting pool, here's an update:

Have to get out that residual algae that was left there from Obama and Biden administrations I guess. Nothing is ever the fault of the current administration. Nothing. Ever.

Information that has been made available about the MOU
link

Thank you, williamb.

It seems to fall short of Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which indicates that Tehran has secured the better deal.

I suppose that's often the price of ending a conflict when your opponent holds cards.

All boy!

Here are two more "leaked" versions of the MOU. 😏

Subject: Al Arabiya English obtains 14-point draft of US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding


link

Subject: READ: Leaked Alleged Text of Trump-Iran Deal


link

Let's all find more.

Even WHEN released, NOT the final agreement. 😏

"when your opponent holds cards."

So did "Wild Bill". 😉

The pool:

"The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool recently turned green with algae days after a $14 USD million renovation. The Department of the Interior attributed the green hue to "residual algae" from supply lines that sat dormant for eight weeks during construction, and stated that new nanobubbler technology would clear it up.

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has struggled with algae blooms since its construction in 1922. The recent $14.2 USD million renovation involved repainting the pool "American flag blue" and repairing structural leaks. During previous administrations, a major $34 USD million renovation was completed under the Obama administration, which also saw persistent algae return shortly after reopening."

"Nothing is ever the fault of the current administration. Nothing. Ever."

And I as easily say based on you all: "Nothing is ever successful or good with this one" 🤣

But I agree, hard NOT to blame most BAD things on Obama and Biden… so so so many to choose from."

I mean just one above:

"..a major $34 USD million renovation was completed under the Obama administration, which also saw persistent algae return shortly after reopening."

If Obama spending over double had JUST done it successfully. 😏

🤔
You know, some people claim that they can blame over 20 million bad things on Joe. 😏

Legion …Military success is not always how we get there, it's one component, IMO. Iranian leaders know how to play us, they are doing it now. My guess..

IMO…We have not won the peace, there is no peace until there is regime change. That cannot be won on the battlefield alone. It may be that they are nearly out of missiles, which Putin and Xi will now replace. But they have their proxies and terror cells and the internal force for control, this is how they fight. My guess again…

Regime change is an internal process in the end. Venezuela remains a Socialist dictatorship, Maduro's people still run the government, political prisoners are still in jail, there are no election plans AFAIK. New elites will be sharing the economic spoils with the old. My guess…

In Iran, there is little internal support for the regime except in rural areas. This is key for changing the government. Covert assistance, a large multinational effort, could include things I have already mentioned. Give the Guard some second thoughts about them and their families becoming victims of their own methods in their everyday lives. Restore the internet, critical for internal coordination of resistance. Conduct cyber warfare. Keeping taking out every new leader. Build and link coalitions for eventual takeover. My guess..

Yea, I don't know much. Basically nothing. But dealing with this regime is not going to fix Iran. Trump's deal with the Taliban? Not good…..My dumb a#$ guess.

Tort and others the Iranians overthrew their "tyrant" before "without" foreign help.

"Iran (1979): The Islamic Revolution was entirely domestic. Millions of Iranians protested, went on strike, and successfully forced the Shah's government to collapse."

Ok, I'll give you, the Shah wasn't as bad as Radical fundamentalist Islam leaders. But that's NoT what our press and academics said.

Did they need weapons?

"The Iranian people overthrew the Shah's heavily armed regime by using economic paralysis, sheer numerical superiority, and tactical defections within the military itself, proving that weapons are only effective if soldiers are willing to pull the trigger."

I'd add an incompetent US President as well.

So the current mess was the responsibility of the Iranian people themselves.

Well darn!

The old "the grass always looks greener".

Is there not military other than the Guard in Iran?

Well yes: The Artesh (Conventional Army)

Now why wouldn't they help the downtrodden people again if they rise up? 🤔 Are they not made up of the sons and fathers of the people?

The U.S. and Israel even went in and softened things up this time.

So why are they demanding, like so many others, "free us?"

Did they lose the backbone beforehand and what's left is too afraid? Willing to suffer? OR really support the government? 😱

Look at Haiti

"Initial Uprising (1791): The initial, coordinated rebellions in the northern plantations were indeed fought with whatever was on hand—machetes, hoes, and fire. The rebels quickly raided armories and defeated colonial militias to secure proper firearms."

Spartacus?

In other words, get off your knees and try! Well unless in their hearts they are mostly radical fundamentalist Muslims too.

I'd say the same about Venezuela, and have.

"Nicolás Maduro rose to power by being handpicked as the political successor to former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and subsequently winning a highly contested special election in April 2013"

And Chávez

""Hugo Chávez obtained power by winning a historic landslide presidential election in December 1998. He capitalized on widespread public anger toward a corrupt political establishment and promised to rebuild the country on behalf of the poor"

His rise to power occurred through a deliberate transition from a military rebel to a democratic populist: [1, 2]

1. The Failed 1992 Coup Attempt [1]
Chávez was a charismatic lieutenant colonel in the Venezuelan army. In February 1992, he led a bloody, unsuccessful military coup attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. Though the coup failed and Chávez was jailed, he was allowed to give a brief, televised address before his imprisonment. He famously declared that his goals were unfulfilled "for now" (por ahora). This short speech turned him into an overnight folk hero for millions of Venezuelans frustrated by poverty and inequality. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. A Strategic Pardon
After spending two years in prison, Chávez was pardoned in 1994 by President Rafael Caldera, who dropped the charges in an attempt to foster national unity. Upon his release, Chávez abandoned armed rebellion, took off his uniform, and founded a left-wing political party called the Movement of the Fifth Republic (MVR). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Capitalizing on Economic Crises
By 1998, Venezuela was reeling from economic devastation. More than half the population lived below the poverty line, oil prices had plummeted, inflation was rampant, and massive corruption scandals plagued the elite class. Chávez positioned himself as an anti-establishment outsider. He campaigned on the "Bolivarian Revolution," promising to eradicate poverty, dismantle the corrupt traditional parties, and completely rewrite the nation's constitution. [1, 2, 3, 4]

4. The 1998 Electoral Landslide
On December 6, 1998, the Venezuelan electorate completely rejected the traditional two-party system that had ruled for 40 years. Chávez won the presidency in a landslide victory, securing 56.2% of the vote. It was the largest margin of victory in modern Venezuelan history at that time, and he officially took office in February 1999. [, 2, 3, 4, 5]

5. Rewriting the Rules of the State
Once in office, Chávez immediately used his overwhelming popularity to solidify his power: [1, 2]

* The 1999 Constitution: He successfully initiated a public referendum to elect a new assembly, which drafted a brand-new constitution.
* Institutional Overhaul: Approved by voters in late 1999, the new constitution abolished the old congress and supreme court, dramatically expanded presidential authorities, and reorganized the government to give him immense control over state institutions. [1, 2, 3]
By rewriting the fundamental laws of the land, Chávez transformed his initial democratic victory into a highly centralized, socialist system that allowed him to rule until his death in 2013."

ˇSí, quítale a los ricos! ˇAlgo a cambio de nada! ˇSí! ˇSí!

Sounds like the same thing I hear in the U.S. currently and the same thing will happen!

I give you NYC, Seattle, Portland, the People's Republic of California…

So who was responsible? The People.

Now they are shouting the same refrain: "Come save us! Save us!".

I have just read the 14 point agreement and I am left wondering what all of this was about. It looks like the JCPOA was a significantly better agreement.

- The JCPOA returned $1.7 USD Billion of Iran's money that it had paid for equipment. This agreement will release all frozen funds of Iran (Article 11). The agreement will also ensure Iran gets at least an additional $300 USD Billion.

- The JCPOA removed sanctions specifically related to nuclear activities; other sanctions remained in place. This agreement removes all sanctions, providing Iran with significant funds.

- Iran Reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. Nothing new here. It is a reiteration of a previous statement. The devil will be in the details.

The thing that worries me here is the perception that this is a climb down by the US. If that is how the US electorate perceives it, then there will be a huge political inertia against repeating this type of endeavor in the future.
With the JCPOA there was always the threat in the background of military action against Iran. This agreement on the face of it looks weaker than the JCPOA, but also potentially removes the threat of military action due to US political repercussions .
The final analysis of the agreement is really going to depend on the negotiated details of Article 8 about nuclear weapons.

Correction:

You have read the purported MOU. (With every side spinning for agenda purposes)

Which even if one or more true, is not the actual final agreement. Which supposedly follows 60 days later.

We should wait until then….. but we won't. 😂

Political spin is all!

Still haven't seen the goals (as I requested) from those saying the goals have not been met.

Could it be they really didn't have them?

Really just attempting to spin?

I even gave 2. Can't make it any easier.

Remember: "official".

1) again, Iran cannot have nukes! Do they? No.
2) we or a designated agent, must have or destroy the dust. Do we or someone else have it now? No. We hope it is part of the final agreement and if not, a failure on the part of the White House. (Did I say that? 😱).

But we know it's buried… buried deep. Based on our, Israel, Iran and another prominent source.

So the others goals? Not many. But they are?

You are correct, it is the MOU. I believe we can remove the word purported.

Now the MOU is the foundational document on which the final deal is based. The final deal can be expected to flesh out the points in the MOU.

The JCPOA still allowed Iran to have some nuke material for "civilian" purposes. And it had an expiration date. Then Iran could do what is wanted.

The JPCOA did little to 0 if anything about Iran's missile program … See for nukes to be really, really effective they have to be the warhead of a missile. I'm sure that is well known. However, if one believes the JPCOA. Maybe they don't understand how nukes really work.

The JPCOA did not address Iran's support for islamic terrorism in the region. Not that I have seen/heard.

The billions of $ was frozen assets the Shah gave the US for weapons sales.

The JPCOA gave that money to Iran's islamists and guess what they spent that $ ? It was not to help their people. It went to Iran's quest for nukes, other weapons and support of islamic terrorism.

Biden did no better on Iran and in many many other areas as well …

And it has been made clear again. I'm watching it right now on TV. Iran will get NO US Tax payer $ …

Their moslems neighbors may give Iran some $ to help rebuild their infrastructure … Infrastructure that supplies many places in the world oil, etc.

And the POTUS just said, Again … Iran gets nothing if they violate any of the points outlined in the current agreement.

The 300 billion being mentioned will not be coming from the USA.

The USA does not need pretty much anything from Iran …

Obama just recently admitted that the JPCOA was only about an 80-90% fix. Yes even he said so. But as usual there is no way in reality that the JCPOA was anywhere near that effective.

PLUS both Obama and Biden trusted Iran to follow whatever they agreed upon. They knew and saw neither of them were strong, capable wartime leaders. So Iran was and did do what it wanted. Including sending weapons and assets to Iraq to kill US and allied troops.

Trump in his first terms in the WH … ended that for the most part by killing Suleimani … with a drone strike. Why did Obama not do that ? He made a number of drone attacks on a number of islamic terrorist leaders, and other targets.

But that matters little the damage was done … And now it has to be "fixed" …

The JCPOA was not a good agreement … It was based on trusting Iran. As everyone knows or must know … they can't be trusted …

The MOU Article 8 talks about Iran having legitimate nuclear needs, so I wouldn't rule out them retaining a civilian program.

There is nothing in the MOU that covers ballistic missiles.

The MOU article 1 may or may not address support for terrorism. It is very vague. Indeed, if I read it correctly the US may have already broken this provision after signing it, by threatening the bombing will resume if Iran doesn't comply. Not great for the prospects of a final agreement if the terms of the MOU are broken in the first 24 hours.

Many on here were against any money going to Iran to support them in any way at all when it was $1.7 USDB Now it seems like $300 USDB + is OK as long as it doesn't come directly from the US tax payers.

And I may be a little cynical here, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the next month or two, somewhere between $1.0 USD and 2.0 Trillion of interest free reconstruction "loans" are made to Gulf nations that had damaged infrastructure during the conflict. And then these very same nations, totally unrelatedly, are the ones that front the $300 USD Billion to Iran.

The Institute for the Study of War (an institute that is considered neo-conservative and hawkish) has summarized the MOU as published by media sources and statements from the US and Iranian Governments regarding what has been published.
link

It seems to fall short of Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which indicates that Tehran has secured the better deal.

How … I just outlined why it is was not a good plan/deal. Again, Iran will not follow any agreement. They will lie, cheat, steal, obfuscate, etc., etc.

And with the POTUS's current plan he said just again, if Iran does not follow any points of the MOU/agreement. The US will strike them. Again and again if needed. The IRGC is not and has no plan to stop their threats/attacks.

What is so hard for some to get. Iran is play the long game … They nod in agreement and then do what they want. History clearly demonstrates that over and over again.

Some here wanted me to name who said what … Here … most recently former CIA Team Chief Dan Hoffman. Just kept saying as well as others whose names I've mentioned. You can't trust Iran. And yes, Hoffman, Kean, Kellog, Wharten, etc. said the same.

So for anything one does no matter what you can't trust Iran … period …

And the POTUS just said again … If Iran does not follow any points of the MOU/agreements, etc. The US will continue to attrite and remove the remaining regime, IRGC, Basji, etc.

Some need to stop thinking the JCPOA was a good deal. It was for Iran. But not for anyone else … Who can't see that ?

This is beginning to board on foolishness. Iran's remaining regime, the IRGC, etc. will not stop their quest for nukes, initiate their "End times" and turn the world into an islamic caliphate. As ridiculous as it sounds. Most don't believe such lunacy, but it does not matter … They do and that is all that counts.

Again, the IJFs in WWII believed that they would die honorably for their emperor. We see similarly with Iran's islamists.

Again does anybody think Iran's islamists wouldn't use nukes if they had them.

Does anybody doubt the effectiveness of modern nuclear weapons ? Even the ones Iran could produce ?

Again some of this is boarding on foolishness …

Oh and BTW the POTUS said again 300 million $ will be done by the local moslem allies. If the want …

And Again … If Iran violates any part of this "deal" they get nothing. No carrot … just a very big stick …

No-one is saying the JCPOA was perfect. What is being questioned is whether this deal is any better.

Also, threatening to bomb Iran if they don't comply with the MOU is actually a breach of the MOU.
How can you expect Iran to comply with the MOU if the US isn't going to comply with the MOU.

At various points the administration's stated objective has apparently been:

no nukes,

no WMDs,

no enrichment,

reopen Hormuz,

stop proxy support,

restore deterrence,

regime change,

"finish the job,"

Unconditional surrender,

or simply "mow the grass" indefinitely.

Yes this has been discussed …

However, the situation is very clear currently … Whatever happened or has been said or done in the past in old news.

IMO and others[do I have to mention all their names again?]. Based on history Iran will violate any MOU, agreements, etc. And the US and maybe the IDF, etc. will have to finish the task that must be done.

To save the region and the world the threat of islamic fanatics is to "terminate with extreme prejudice" …

As well as ending the support of islamic terrorists in the region and the world.

IF this is successful … it will change the dynamics of the region. And in turn much of the world …

However, IMO kinetic action will have to commence again to actually end this islamic threat…

And those actions will happen sooner than later …

Hmm, I guess this is what unconditional surrender looks like. No regime change, Iran will continue to sponsor terrorism. They get $300 USD Billion, which will be used for terrorism. They keep their uranium and nuke program but with a "trust but verify approach" which we were told was wrong when Obama did it cuz you can't trust the Iranians. The Strait will be will open… like it was before we started this war. Well, good to know. Here silly me was thinking unconditional surrender looked more like the Japanese aboard the USS Missouri. Live and learn. Well worth the cost!

Have to get out that residual algae that was left there from Obama and Biden administrations I guess. Nothing is ever the fault of the current administration. Nothing. Ever.

Who gives a 💩 ?!?!?

We are talking about nukes in the hands of islamic lunatics … Not frakking algae !

The priority is clear. Moving the deck chairs on the Titanic is not one of them …

And if you live near any body of water algae happens … Means little …