"VDH on Iranian options" Topic

link

I think Trump should and will pick the second. This one:

An alternative course is a riskier one that could involve greater casualties and Iranian missile and drone strikes against Israel and the Gulf states. It would begin with issuing a final one-week deadline for Iran to concede to U.S. demands to denuclearize, hand over all its enriched uranium, dismantle its remaining missile forces, cease subsidizing Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and stop interfering with international traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Otherwise, for a week or so, the U.S. would strike the remaining regime grandees who believe they are still in charge of the government, along with dual-use bridges, subterranean nuclear depots, power plants, island ports and docks, weapons arsenals and factories, and the remnants of the Iranian mosquito navy. It would then open the Strait of Hormuz, leave a guardian force to keep it navigable, declare victory, go home, and pivot to the economy.

The point would be to inflict enough damage on the Iranian theocracy and its appendages to end the current off-and-on war. Either such Iranian concessions or such destruction would humiliate the regime, neuter its military, and halt its nuclear aspirations for decades, leaving it ripe for internal uprising.

Because bombing worked so well the first time in ending the war?

No thought about Iran launching against oil infrastructure in the ME and what that would do to oil prices for a considerable time? No thought about what happens in the Bab-el Mandeb strait?
No explanation of how many targets need to be hit or why a single week would be long enough to strike all those targets? Are there even enough munitions in theatre to do so?
Apparently a regime that has lasted this long under assault will suddenly collapse because why exactly?
I get the feeling such vague thoughts expressed there is how Trump and Bibi started this mess.

Trump has lost this one. He should just declare victory and bring his boys and girls home. Iran will eventually open the Strait one way or another.

IMO, there is nothing here that forms a reality-based course of action. Broad and vague, it seems to simply re-state in general what we wanted to do in the first place and have been trying to do all along. I think this plan is a couple sandwiches short of a picnic.

I am really wondering what the military is advising the POTUS at this point…and whether the WH is listening.

The proposal seems to assume that Iran will react exactly as the planners hope and not as adversaries usually do.

Issuing an ultimatum demanding that a sovereign state surrender its nuclear programme, missile forces, regional influence, and strategic deterrents within a week is not really a negotiation; it's a demand for capitulation. History suggests governments rarely respond to that by saying, "Fair enough." Delusional seems to be the Bon Mot in describing this idea.

Even if the military side went exactly to plan, what then? We have seen repeatedly that destroying infrastructure is easier than producing the desired political outcome. Bridges, ports, power stations, and weapons factories can be bombed. Creating a stable post-conflict situation cannot.

The proposal also seems to treat Iranian retaliation as an afterthought. Missile strikes on Gulf oil facilities, attacks on shipping, proxy actions across the region, and disruption of energy markets are not minor details. They are probably the most predictable consequences.

And the phrase "declare victory, go home, and pivot to the economy" reads less like a strategy and more like the final sentence of a wish list. The difficult part of military intervention is usually not the opening strikes. It's what happens afterwards.

I'm not defending the Iranian regime, which has plenty to answer for. I'm questioning the assumption that another week of bombing can solve problems that decades of sanctions, diplomacy, covert action, and the current conflict have failed to solve. The Iran War is a quagmire of the US's making.

If recent history teaches anything, it's that wars are usually much simpler in social media tweets than they are in reality.

Well, Trump today said that Iran agreed to never make a nuclear weapon so everything good and we can stop worrying about Iran.

Because bombing worked so well the first time in ending the war?

You assume that was the purpose of the bombing.

I would think the reason for the bombing was to retard the Iranian nuclear capability.

Yes Bill that is correct, I agree … mitigating Iran's nuclear capabilities …

VDH is always very good … more should listen to him …

I get the feeling such vague thoughts expressed there is how Trump and Bibi started this mess.

Incorrect assumption. The threat of Iran getting nukes is the priority … The Israelis has been at war, at least at an asymmetrical level has been at war with Iran for a long time … The POTUS was doing something that should have been done long ago. Iran's islamists can't get nukes … period …

Trump has lost this one.

How ? It is not over yet ?

If some let their personal bias override the logic for stopping Iran getting Nukes. Some really must not get how bad it would be if Iran's radical islamists bent on starting the End Times would be …

It amazes me that some don't see that … Nukes … right … yes, nukes …

wars are usually much simpler in social media tweets than they are in reality.

Yes … very much simpler …

How ? It is not over yet ?

Is the US closer to achieving its war aims than when it began 3 months ago?
(I do have one thing to thank Donny for. He inspired me to finally buy a Chinese EV which I've been hesitating to do for a few years. It's fantastic!)

BYD? The MGs are also improving IMO.

I'm a fan of stick shift petrol engines – I own a sports car – but clearly EVs are the way to go, even if, as unlikely as it seems, the Strait of Hormuz will ever have free passage again.

Words from the "invisible ayatollah".

🤔 Hmmmm. Some of these posts seem to have a few of his talking points. Are people listing to "Radio J.I.H.A.D"? Radio "12th Imam"? The "Tehran Tim" podcast? Or God forbid! "The View"! 😱

From: II

"Iran's Supreme Leader warns against public frustration, urges unity
3 hours ago
Updated: 11:44 GMT+1

Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said the United States and what he called the global imperialism is opposed to Iran's "distinct and unyielding identity," casting the conflict with Washington a confrontation over the nature of the Iranian nation rather than only military or diplomatic disputes.

"The system of domination, led by America, has a problem with this nation and its distinct and unyielding identity," said a message read out on Khamenei's behalf marking the anniversary of the death of Islamic Republic founder Ruhollah Khomeini.

He said the United States and Israel could not accept the existence of a strong and independent Iran near what he described as the eastern edge of the "false geography" of Greater Israel.

Khamenei said the enemy had suffered defeat against Iran's armed forces and had also experienced what he called a "meaningful and deep humiliation" in the streets.

He said the enemy was now focusing its "hybrid war" on two goals: undermining public belief and creating miscalculation among officials.

The Supreme Leader said the main tools of that effort were planting "doubt, despair, fear, suspicion and division," and urged officials and the public to respond with unity, clarity and mutual trust.

He also warned officials that any action causing public frustration or distrust would amount to helping the enemy.

"Any action that causes pessimism and disillusionment among the people is a form of assistance to the enemy of this country and its people," he said.

He described the current moment as a new opportunity to promote what he called the school of Ruhollah Khomeini and his slain father, whom he portrayed as "martyred" but victorious."

A civilian target. Innocents killed and wounded.

Where are all you who were in outrage over the school deaths at the beginning of the conflict? That was accidental. This specifically targeted(and not their first).

Is it Only "targeted outrage"? 😏

Iran's version:

"Wednesday's strikes on Kuwait damaged airport facilities and diplomatic missions, killing one person and injuring more than 60 others, Kuwaiti authorities and state media said.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard denied firing at Kuwait's airport and blamed the destruction on U.S. interceptor missiles that it said failed to hit their targets, according to Iranian state media.

The U.S. military rejected that account, saying Iranian drones deliberately targeted the airport and a video appears to expose the Iranian regime's lie."

Kuwaits version (via Reuters)

"Reuters
@Reuters
Kuwait's civil aviation authority released surveillance footage it says is an Iranian drone crashing into its international airport"

Video on X.

Oh yes.

For those outraged about the "temporary" price of gas because of the conflict. Yes it is "temporary". Just a little over a month ago gas hit 4.99 a gallon (the highest it got here).

Today the average here about 3.87 and dropping.

But lowest

Here is some data from the gasoline price tracker GasBuddy.com that reveals where regular gas prices are the lowest in the region, followed by a map with locations at the bottom.

"Dayton Area

1. Sam's Club: 6955 Miller Ln., Dayton — $3.33 USD

2. Wawa: 4949 Chambersburg Rd. Dayton — $3.39 USD

3. Buc-ee's: 8000 Ohio 235, Huber Heights — $3.41 USD"

Me, I'm willing to suffer for the Iran regime made weaker. But those 3 lowest here are not too far from prices before the conflict.

War picks up, prices will go up. Obviously.

Trump has repeatedly stated that the nuke material is no longer available to Iran. As Brett Baier asked "so why are we still there?" There is a PR credibility issue regarding the status of the cease fire and the negotiations, Iran's missile capabilities. Now, a sign of life from Congress regarding the constitutional war powers issue. Iran is not going to concede to Hanson's pipe dream demands.

Incorrect assumption. The threat of Iran getting nukes is the priority … The Israelis has been at war, at least at an asymmetrical level has been at war with Iran for a long time … The POTUS was doing something that should have been done long ago. Iran's islamists can't get nukes … period …

Not an incorrect assumption at all. Such an attack on Iran has been regularly gamed with the consequences included. VDH in his piece has skipped over any depth of thinking and blithly stated a week is all it would take with no thought about what Iran would do in the meantime. No plan survives first contact…, The enemy gets a say…. etc. The folks here with a service background should be well aware of that concept.
Had there been significant depth of thinking at the level of the President then no we wouldn't be in this mess. The US would have had to go in much harder to get the desired result i.e. Iraq in 1991 or 2003. The alternative is to not tear up the JCPOA and use the time allotted in that agreement to get a diplomatic answer.

If it was such an issue why wasn't it dealt with when Trump tore up the JCPOA?

I read an interesting article last week that said Iran runs out of storage in about 4 weeks and will have to start shutting down oil wells. Apparently, oil wells are difficult to restart and very difficult to restart at previous capacity. The article argued that at that point this changes from a short-term economic impact on Iran to much more damaging. The punchline was that time is not on Iran's side like everyone has been led to believe.

"Now, a sign of life from Congress regarding the constitutional war powers issue. Iran is not going to concede to Hanson's pipe dream demands."

Tort,

1) don't get your hopes up. Yes I've seen the chill up the legs about this in the MSM. 😂 4 republicans joined in the house (one of which was Massie! Surprise! 😏 2 have tough districts to win.) So let us say it passes in the Senate. VETOED!! They sure as He#l can't override it.

2) as many have pointed out: This isn't over! I know the Democrats, TDAers and MSM had it over on day 2, with abject US defeat and humiliation… especially for Trump (much glee. Patting each other on the back. Gloating …. Oh the gloating. Of course the rubbing of hands, goes without saying). But it AIN'T over.

3) the stuff is buried, by ourselves and our ally. They have said they can't get to it. We have said it. Israel has said it. Believe or don't. But it is still down there. Given time, a Democrat Congress, a Democrat President. They will dig it up.

As to the others… no deal has stopped them from continuing, as of yet.

No deal has stopped them from killing westerners since 1979, either directly or indirectly. You and I have just been lucky enough to not be one….. yet.

But then some of us have not been so fortunate with those we care about.

From: II

"55 minutes ago
IAEA source says no observable activity at bombed Iran nuclear sites – WSJ

There had been no observable activities at Iranian nuclear sites bombed last year in recent months, based on satellite imagery at surface level, Wall Street Journal reporter Laurence Norman said on X, citing a source close to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The source said it was impossible to speak with any certainty about whether the stockpile of highly enriched uranium was still at Isfahan, noting that containers with highly enriched uranium could be moved in the back of a truck."

Bombing to take out the nuke capability would be then winning the war. I stand by what I said.

Only those who have been naive, ignore a radical fundamentalist Muslim regime that has killed their people directly or indirectly since 1979. One who continued to amass weapons of destruction used on them and their allies, by themselves or by their allies. One who openly calls for their death and destruction as the Great Satan. One who was attempting to develop the "ultimate weapon".

As our Presidents and politicians have since 79. How much easier to have rectified in the past.

May this President NOT rely on promises, wergeld and very questionable at best, verification to end this.

BYD?

Yep. My diesel BT50 is only going to be used to carry stuff now.

Back to Iran, I read somewhere that these last three months have demonstrated that Iran doesn't need nukes to defend itself (deterrence is another matter).

Is the US closer to achieving its war aims than when it began 3 months ago?

Yes, Iran's assets have suffered extreme attrition. Plus they can't make any deployable nukes at this time …

Sounds like me the US is closer … much closer.

And 3 months is a very short time for the scope of the mission.

Not an incorrect assumption at all. Such an attack on Iran has been regularly gamed with the consequences included. VDH in his piece has skipped over any depth of thinking and blithly stated a week is all it would take with no thought about what Iran would do in the meantime.

Yes, I'm sure this scenario has been war gamed many times. And in reality, since none of us were there, I was not … was any one here ? Again, so many here sound/think they know as much as the US Gov't does. I'm pretty sure we who are not there don't know much … and only what is allowed to be released, i.e. OPSEC …

So yes … incorrect assumption. And I'll generally take VDH's words on most others. Especially here …

No plan survives first contact…, The enemy gets a say…. etc. The folks here with a service background should be well aware of that concept.

Yes I and many other Vets here know that … And many other things we learned at e.g. the US Army Infantry School, Combined Arms School, numerous FTXs and deployments, courses, training, etc. And I'm sure a number of us did lead and command combat troops. Even if only at the tactical level, at least.

Along with the initial plan, many contingencies, secondary plans, etc. have been thought through, etc. And a well-trained military can quickly adapt rapidly changing situations on the battlefield. Based on Immediate Action/Battle Drills, SOPs, etc.

Had there been significant depth of thinking at the level of the President then no we wouldn't be in this mess.

And you know that how ? Again, the US Military has OPLANs and contingencies for many scenarios. And again the military, intel assets etc. knows much more then has been released. That has been my experience. Actually I think you and many others here have little idea about the planning etc. that went into this operation. I know I don't know anything that is classified at any level … now.

I am no longer in any position to have any kind of clearance. My TS/SBI has expired long ago. I no longer work for the US Gov't. And have not for a while. I do have interactions with Vet groups, local ROTC, assist at the nearby USAFR Base, etc. No clearance needed …

The US would have had to go in much harder to get the desired result i.e. Iraq in 1991 or 2003.

Faulty assumption, and belief. The USA long ago knew that and I have said this before, that Iran is much bigger in territory and even population. The US nor anyone else on the planet has the assets, etc. to even attempt to attack on the ground and run large scale operations. No matter how much USN and USAF support is involved.

And that move could expect high losses along with minimal successes based on what lessons were learned in Iraq, A'stan, and even Vietnam. Once again it is their backyard … they are not going anywhere.

Plus the UK and USSR successfully invaded Iran in WWII … This not the same Iran and this is not WWII. Times have changed, drastically.

I understood that, but many RET. GENs, ADMs, etc. have said that. In interviews, reports etc. You don't have to be a Flag Officer retired or otherwise to see and know that. I was only an Army 0-3 …

The alternative is to not tear up the JCPOA and use the time allotted in that agreement to get a diplomatic answer.

Regardless of what some say, the JCPOA was not the instrument as some have believed. I was based on Iran following the guidelines in that agreement. Allowing frequent inspections by outside sources, etc.

How in any universe could anyone think Iran would adhere to anything in that agreement ? Who did they think they were dealing with ? It is obvious they understood little about the militant Iranian jihadi terrorist mind set, etc.

We are infidels, they can lie cheat, steal, etc. plus kill infidels at will. According to some of Iran's Shia interpretation of their religious text. Everyone else are "Untermensch"…

If anyone does not understand, what radical fundamentalist Iran's end game is they are more than out of touch with reality. Don't know what would await if Iran got deployable Nuclear WMDs. But I have a good idea …

Their plans are well known. To use nuclear weapons to initiate their version of the End Times. Yes it sounds ridiculous, something out of sci-fi novel, movie or comic book, etc. By using the power of Nukes to start a massive war in that region and even in the Western World, etc. To bring their Madi, their Messiah, etc. into the world. To create a worldwide Caliphate.

Now we don't have to believe that … but what is important is that they believe it. Somewhat similar the IJFs in WWII. Fighting and dying in the name of their emperor god.

The JCPOA had no teeth, and was really just kicking the can down the road for a future POTUS, etc. And again, it revolved around trusting Iran's militant jihadi Gov't and its minions. E.g. the IRGC, Basji, jihadis from Iraq, etc.

That would have proven to be a most foolish error. Made by people who had little idea how to deal with these islamist types. Two POTUSs gave Iran billions of $. USD. Even in cash. The same ones who thought the JCPOA was a good idea … it was not. And all that $ went to fund Iran's nuke program and support such radical fanatical islamic terrorists. As e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraq's Shia militias, etc.

Very bad people, again blinded by and wedded to a skewed version of one of the major religions on the planet.

And what part of Nuclear WMDs are some willing to dismiss their lethality, etc.? Today many times more powerful and deadly than the WWII versions.

Who is willing to risk not taking Iran's threats of Death to Israel, etc. seriously ?

That would be as foolish as believing the JCPOA and giving Iran billions of $ would work to solve the problem …

Anyone who thinks that way may need to do more research on the subject …

35th – a sign of life in this Congress is kind of like still breathing but not much more. I don't have any hopes here, but its another sign that things are not going the way we would like. Regime change was apparently not encouraged by the military, but I don't see how we can say we "won" without it because the threats will always be happening with the current class of leaders there.

Its not the cost of gas alone that hurts – its that the cost of fuel makes everything more expensive eventually. Between inflation and the tariffs, the economy needs some attention. I don't know what will happen in November, but moving around the deck chairs isn't necessarily the answer.

We are not safe until there is regime change.

Saying ‘we're not safe until there is regime change' isn't a policy—it's wishful thinking. External regime change in Iran is not something anyone can reliably deliver and history and the on-going "unpleasantry" shows it is uncommon difficult. I am not being partisan because anyone with knowledge of history would acknowledge this.

The Obama-era approach (JCPOA, sanctions, limited engagement) was built on managing the Iranian state as it is, not assuming it could be reshaped from outside on demand. That wasn't naivety. It was realism.

More broadly, wars justified on maximal outcomes like regime change tend to drift into open-ended commitments without clear end states. This is something recent history has not been kind to.

Current strategy should have been built on achievable outcomes, not hoped-for political transformations.

Ochoin,

"The Obama-era approach (JCPOA, sanctions, limited engagement) was built on managing the Iranian state as it is, not assuming it could be reshaped from outside on demand. That wasn't naivety. It was realism."

Verifiable proof from multiple acceptable sources please. Proof that inspectors were allowed anywhere and everywhere. Otherwise, just repeating what the Obama administration wanted people to believe.

Also how much money did the Obama administration give to Iran. Please don't say it was theirs. It was not theirs until they got it back.

What did they use that money for? Was there accountability? By whom?

Let's see actual "non-bias" facts. That will be rough, since the MSM was up Obama's pants leg.

"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

Date 2-20-2012
MSNBC
Chris Matthews

Yes "unbiased" verification. Good Luck. 😏

"The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer".
Barrack Obama

"What was reported: In the article, Kristof wrote that Obama recited the opening lines of the adhan (the Muslim call to prayer) with a first-class Arabic accent. Kristof noted that Obama described it as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

Well thats a long time ago. Sounds now like Hanson is to Trump what Matthews was to Obama. There is no "one side is right", IMO. And Trump did propose giving Iran ten times as much of their money back as Obama did, I believe. There is no cease fire – like when everybody stops firing – and "deals" with these guys?

Again, I have advocated for an aggressive, multinational covert destabilization of the Guard and the mullahs. Use some of their own tactics on them, people disappearing, etc. without crossing too many lines into terrorism. But we know every nation conducts dirty business. And fighting a conventional war with these guys is not really how they roll. They don't much care, they keep fighting on their level. Give them some of their own medicine? Sounds immoral, I know. But look at what we are dealing with.

The Obama-era approach (JCPOA, sanctions, limited engagement) was built on managing the Iranian state as it is, not assuming it could be reshaped from outside on demand. That wasn't naivety. It was realism.

Again, foolishness … as I have said. That sort of plan only works if one could trust Iran's islamist leaders. They saw the weakness, incompetence, pie-in-the-sky, etc. thinking. That is the reality … To believe otherwise is beyond the obvious.

In both Admins, Obama and Biden, they thought what they were doing would be effective. That is beyond naivety. They nor some here, in Congress, etc. don't understand or want to what Iran's radical fanatics are really all about. They are not people we could really speak to or trust.

On what plain of existence is that not the reality? They are out to kill infidels and turn the world into a moslem caliphate. As I have posted many times before.

They took advantage of both the Obama's and Biden's Admin. Both of which were didn't have the right stuff to effectively deal with these fanatics. And again both of those admins were taken very much advantage of by Iran's End Time radical islamists.

The option is to allow Iran's islamists get deployable nukes

Support islamic terrorism, e.g. remember Oct 7, remember what Hamas with Iran's support did that day.

Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraq's Shia militias, etc. Are not reasonable logical societies, cultures, etc.

They want to kill infidels based of their skewed religious beliefs.

They want to control the Straits, that is a major supply line for petroleum that powers many nations depend on.

Another reality is they slaughter many of their own people. The 80% of their population that does not want to be under their draconian islamist boots.

ISIS had similar aspirations … but most of them are dead or in prison camps which they will never get out of. And very often the kill off a few still trying to kill us …

What is so hard to understand ?

There is nothing anyone can to do with the islamists of Iran. But continue to attrite them and their military equipment. With extreme prejudice … War is a test of wills. They must be removed from the map.

Doc,

Then we aren't going to be save for a long time.

I am also sad that nothing will be done to stop the sponsoring of terrorism which I feel is a much bigger problem than nukes are this point in time. Not that much can likely be done.

So do we just hunker down and enjoy the time that remains?

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

doc mcb +1

Both Reagan and Trump tried and/or are trying for deals with Iran. But Obama is the bad guy? Trump now denies he was considering giving Iran 20 billion for their uranium earlierin the war – with which they could just sneak in some more I suppose. But who knows? In any case "negotiations" drag on… Iran will keep stalling. Thus, no good off ramp. But not the end of the world, just more status quo until we finally outsmart them somehow.

I do believe from the start of this, I blamed all presidents since 1979.

But it's not just our presidents.

"Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been directly or indirectly involved in attacks against more than 40 countries globally, utilizing state-sponsored terrorism, an extensive network of proxy militias, and direct military strikes."

One case in point:

"Iran was actively supporting the Houthis during their maritime attacks. The U.S. Navy and intelligence agencies confirmed that Iran was "very directly involved," providing the Houthis with advanced drones, anti-ship missiles, tactical intelligence, and monitoring data to target vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

The Houthi targeting of commercial and naval vessels expanded far beyond their initial claim of only hitting Israeli-affiliated ships.

Ships Attacked: The Houthis launched more than 130 missile and drone attacks, striking dozens of merchant ships.Countries

Impacted: According to data from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the attacks directly impacted the maritime interests of at least 65 different countries.

Indiscriminate Targets: The Houthis targeted vessels flying the flags of, or owned by companies in, the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Liberia, Marshall Islands, and Panama. They even inadvertently struck ships with ties to Russia and China, as well as ships carrying cargo bound for Iran itself."

Yes some attacks against the Houthis. But against Iran, the sponsor….. 🦗.

"The European Union and individual European nations have punished Iran primarily through unprecedented, aggressive economic warfare, legal blacklisting, and structural sanctions directly tied to its sponsorship of the Houthi maritime attacks."

🫨 Did it stop them supporting Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah and other terrorist? Did it decrease their weapons in any way? Their Navy or Air Force get any smaller from sanctions? They become less aggressive?

How have sanctions worked with Russia? They still in the Ukraine four years later?

Evil 😈 laughs at sanctions, because there are always those, even in the countries imposing them, who are willing to break them for a quick buck.

So no, not JUST the fault of the U.S.

Radical Fundamentalist Islam, is the enemy of everyone who does not adhere to their beliefs. Eventually everyone finds out.

Earlier today, former CIA Tm Chief Dan Hoffman, in an interview. Made it clear JCPOA was not a good agreement. As well as many RET. Senior Officers have said repeatedly.

To think otherwise is just foolish …

VDH's piece misses something

You can believe Iran is dangerous, hostile, sponsors proxies, and should not get nukes without pretending the current situation is some kind of strategic masterstroke.

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

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.

And if the plan was quick coercion, how exactly are we in the catbird seat three months later with negotiations unresolved, Hormuz still a concern, proxy attacks continuing, uncertainty about enriched uranium, and constant debate over whether we escalate or de-escalate?

A militarily weakened Iran does not automatically equal strategic success for the U.S. You can win the shooting war and still get strategically stuck. He knows that.

Also, one thing I find odd in a lot of this debate: people keep collapsing two totally separate arguments into one.

1. Iran was getting closer to some form of nuclear threshold.
2. Iran would irrationally get a bomb and immediately fire it in an apocalyptic frenzy.

Those are not the same argument.

The first concern has been shared pretty broadly by Europe, Gulf states, inspectors, etc. The second often veers into comic-book psychology if not hysteria.

If Iran wanted a bomb, the more plausible reason has always seemed deterrence and regional leverage along the liones of "you can't touch us now" , not waking up one Tuesday and launching national suicide against a nuclear-armed Israel.

That doesn't make Iran benign. It just means treating them like irrational movie villains may not be a serious basis for strategy.

The bigger fear to me would be a nuclear umbrella behind which Iran becomes more aggressive through proxies and regional intimidation, not some instant Dr. Strangelove scenario.

And lastly, if the war was largely unilateral, weakly supported internationally, lightly debated domestically, and has now become difficult to exit cleanly, then talking like "America has got 'em right where it wants 'em" feels… optimistic.

Regardless …

Iran cannot be allowed to have deployable Nukes.
That was the plan all 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 in 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 this operation is planless, supportless, improvised, etc. ? With the limited information that can be released during a state of a 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 during WWII 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 and 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 …

Incarvart +1