"Iran - What Worked, and What Didn't Work?" Topic

Good blunt assessment here by a military intel analyst on what worked in the War against Iran vs what didn't work.

YouTube link

The video is an "After Action Review" (AAR) by Ryan McBeth on the recent U.S.-led Operation Epic Fury against Iran (circa early 2026), framed as a warning to adversaries like China and Russia while highlighting lessons for the U.S.

What Went Right (U.S. Strengths Demonstrated)Political Will and Strategic Impact: After decades of inaction across multiple administrations, the U.S. (under Trump 47) acted decisively. This set back Iran's nuclear/ballistic missile programs significantly (potentially 10–20+ years or permanently, depending on the agreement), making the world safer and deterring apocalyptic ambitions tied to regime ideology.

Low Losses and High Effectiveness: Thousands of air missions with minimal aircraft losses (far better than Desert Storm). Clear objectives were met: destruction/degradation of Iran's air force, navy, missile/drone capabilities, and infrastructure.

Missile Defense Success: Patriot and THAAD systems performed well in intercepting ballistic missiles.

Targeting and ISR Dominance: Over 13,000 targets struck in 38 days with exceptional precision (only one known major error), enabled by AI, superior intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, and "any sensor, any decider, any shooter" doctrine. This bodes well for future conflicts like a potential Pacific fight.

Leadership Targeting: Highly effective "find, fix, finish" against regime leaders, sending a strong deterrent message to adversaries (e.g., individual leaders in China would personally pay a price).

Cost-Effective Weapons and Innovations: Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) successfully countered cheap drones like Shaheds at low cost (~$25k per shot). Effective cyber operations, combat search and rescue, and other systems (e.g., LUCAS drones) also shone.

Iran's Information Warfare Failure: Iran's efforts (e.g., propaganda videos) largely flopped due to limited global sympathy for the regime.

What Went Wrong / Challenges ExposedVulnerable Bases and Drone Threats: Bases were exposed; persistent drone attacks highlighted ongoing vulnerabilities (lessons from Ukraine emphasized).

Limited Allied Support: Not enough international backing.

Logistics and Endgame Issues: Disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz; unclear or poorly managed end states/political outcomes.

Information Warfare and Narrative: Weak U.S. efforts at home and abroad; difficulty "winning the narrative" even after battlefield success. Need for better embedded creators and strategic communications.

Other Gaps: Potential needs like an E-7 Wedgetail/AWACS replacement.

Broader Lessons and Warnings
The conflict serves as a demonstration of U.S. power and resolve to China, Russia, and others.

Emphasis on fixing issues (e.g., base hardening, alliances, info ops) before the "next major conflict."

Overall balanced tone: Not pure cheerleading or doomposting—acknowledges successes while calling for improvements.

The video draws on military analysis style, references specific systems/operations, and encourages viewer comments on the biggest lessons. It ends around a memorandum of understanding (not full peace treaty) between the U.S. and Iran.

Agree with the military ops assessments, as far as we know.

Iran fights its war with the west via terrorism and proxies, not as a conventional military power. It is not comparable to fighting China. China watched and learned. It did not see clear and decisive leadership at the top. It knows POTUS did not have a great PR performance and has been weakened politically.

Leadership targeting against China might not get the same results. As a major nuclear power with the world's largest military, it has a lot of options in responding to a similar attack. Xi believes the US has begun to decline, may sense weakness and lack of resolve in reaching meaningful strategic objectives. I am sure he respects the US military performance. But I would not call it a deterrent. More like an incentive to enhance the arms race. IMO.

Not going to touch this. Why?
Because nobody is allowed to criticize the current administration. That's "POLITICS!" Thats a DH offense, and I'm not finished with redecorating my cell.

Am I allowed to say that from Day One, the …..
naaaaah. Too chancy. I'm not permitted to have negatives, while positive vibes are 👍
Have a nice day.

Nope. Not even a "Yeah, but what about…..? out of me.
Enjoy your circular MAGA firing squad and blame game.

It appears nothing worked. Iran has announced the Straits are closed again….

There are 60 days to negotiate something permanent.
Given that Obama's workable Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) took two, full years to negotiate, I'm not sanguine anything much of advantage will be decided in 60 days.

Sadly, +1 PzGeneral.

No regime change. Apparently killing the top layers of mullahs didn't go far enough. Those who survived are still as fanatic.
They still have all the enriched uranium, deeply buried, but that's what tunnel making gear is for.
Missiles? Factories are back up.
And, yes. The Straits are now closed again.
We have severely depleted precision munitions and million dollar interceptors. Which were almost overwhelmed by thousand dollar drones. China has noticed and is smiling in its inscrutable Oriental way. 🙄

Does it really matter what "worked"? Because what did work, we have almost used up.

Ochoin. The JCPOA was a POS. The West needs to deal with Iran or we'll be living with it's terrorist proxies for another 47 years.

The Iran Deal Doesn't Stop At Iran: Russia, China, And North Korea Are Watching

"The US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding is being judged on whether it cools tensions in the Persian Gulf. Strategic-studies scholar Andrew Michta argues that's the wrong test. Iran is now part of a coordinated "Axis of Dictatorships" alongside Russia, China, and North Korea — and any deal that eases pressure on Tehran, including a proposed $300 USD billion in reconstruction, strengthens the entire coalition and weakens the long-term Western position.

The recently finalized Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran to negotiate a permanent end to hostilities is based on a strategic misunderstanding. It assumes Iran can be seen as a standalone regional issue, but in reality, Iran is a key member of an increasingly coordinated "Axis of Dictatorships," a de facto alliance of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. As a result, any concessions to Iran made by the Trump administration are unlikely to remain limited to the Middle East; they will influence Ukraine, the US rivalry with China, U.S. relations with its European allies, Israel, and the Gulf Arab states, as well as the broader emerging global order.

The main flaw in the Trump administration's approach is that it views Iran as an isolated issue rather than part of a larger geopolitical system. After the Cold War, American policymakers grew accustomed to addressing challenges primarily from a regional perspective. Russia was increasingly regarded as a European problem, China as an Asian concern, and Iran as a Middle Eastern issue…"

link

Armand

pziv43

The JCPOA had serious flaws, particularly the sunset clauses. But while it was operating, Iran's enrichment, stockpile and centrifuge numbers were heavily restricted and monitored.
Calling it a "POS" (how vulgar!) is easier than explaining why Iran's nuclear position appears far stronger after the current Iran War than it was when the agreement was being observed.

As for the "next 47 years", it's obvious that tearing up agreements, starting a war you do not have the will to win and hoping for the best is not a strategy at all.

Recent events have made the monitoring of uranium … problematic.
Really? What's going to monitor it now?

But while it was operating, Iran's enrichment, stockpile and centrifuge numbers were heavily restricted and monitored.

That's like saying "while it was operating, the Treaty of Washington restricted battleship construction"…

Not going to touch this. Why?
Because nobody is allowed to criticize the current administration. That's "POLITICS!" Thats a DH offense, and I'm not finished with redecorating my cell.

You can criticize it, where folks get into DH trouble is getting insulting about it. I think this guy's youtube video assessment is on target, and if you WATCHED it you'd probably agree that while the US military op was outstanding, the end-game wasn't communicated effectively, we ceded the InfoWar to the western Left, and Trump's blunt bluster had alienated allies that could have been more supportive had he done otherwise. He also has some tactical assessments where the US screwed up -- not having hardened drone security, allowing vulnerability at air bases, etc. All said though. US casualties and equipment losses were incredibly low and we largely met the communicated steps to end-game -- destroy Iran's Air Force, Navy, Ballistic Missile and Nuclear sites, and military industrual infrastructure.

I feel that the Trump Admin was too optimistic about regime change even though it was never a formal goal -- the Israelis focused on that, smashing the leadership and C&C, but the expected uprising never happened… perhaps the Iranian regime gutted the core agitators with the mass slaughter of 30,000-40,000 people in January 2026. The Kurds in the north also sat it out, burned by past broken promises.

pzivh +1

And yes "POS" is a very appropriate term for it …

It appears nothing worked. Iran has announced the Straits are closed again….

But is it really ? Many ships are crossing without incident. It sounds like Iran is putting out a "Beware of the Dog" sign. But they have no dog(s). Or just a few very small ones.

Remember Iran lies you know … often …

So what force of Iran's is closing the Strait ?

And how many assets do they have left ?

What did they do last time they "closed" the Straits ?

A few little boats ?

Maybe dropped mines, and that appears to be to be very limited if any.

A few drones and missiles launched, as they have only a few left.

Someone tell me what massive lethal deadly force does Iran have to shut down the Strait … again?

BTW firing a few pieces of ordinance really if not going effectively close anything. And in many cases those assets are blown out of the sky or water …

FWIW – Just because they say they are closing the Strait does not mean they can do it …

Do they have a paranormal collection of magical genies in bottles they are awaiting to be rubbed and unleash on the ships, etc. in the Strait ? 🍾🍾🍾🍾 🧚‍♀️🧙‍♀️🦸‍♀️🦹‍♀️

😦😧😨😩😱🤯 We're doomed !!!!!

FWIW – Just because they say they are closing the Strait does not mean they can do it …

😄
And who exactly is going to order a tanker to "go for it!"
A civilian tanker, owned by a shipping company. With a Board of Directors and shareholders to answer too.
I would be curious to know how much the insurance costs for any ship going for it.
If Iran says the straits are closed, they're closed. Funny, but before Operatiin Epic Whatever, they're weren't exercising that. Now, thanks to the Memorandum they suddenly can. 👍

it's obvious that tearing up agreements, starting a war you do not have the will to win and hoping for the best is not a strategy at all.

Obvious to who ?

And how do you know there is no will to win ?

Where did that come from ?

Yes hoping for the best is not a strategy … but that is not what is happening …

And who exactly is going to order a tanker to "go for it!"
A civilian tanker, owned by a shipping company. With a Board of Directors and shareholders to answer too.
I would be curious to know how much the insurance costs for any ship going for it.

Yes John we know all that … however, ships have been going thru the Strait without incident over the past few days with more to come …

If Iran says the straits are closed, they're closed. Funny, but before Operatiin Epic Whatever, they're weren't exercising that. Now, thanks to the Memorandum they suddenly can.

The US has cleared lanes on the other side of the strait … and those are being used … now … and even previously.

Again the MOU is not an agreement, it was an outline for negotiating one. It is very possible the POTUS, etc., knows Iran is not going to agree with many things. And in sooner than later … kinetic action will occur … again …

For now the MOU was just more of a tool to get the oil moving and the market rising. Because the midterms are coming. And some in Congress and the media will continue to throw stones at the POTUS. Which only emboldens Iran to lie, obfuscate, etc. only more and more. As they are hoping some in Congress will impeach the POTUS, burn down the WH, and cancel Christmas, etc.

Oh … and not clean the pool …

I am tempted to want the MOU capitulation to fail, it's such a horrible document. However, I'm with President Trump on this. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

"I didn't want to see an economic catastrophe", Pres. Trump explained about why he signed the document & of course, this US issue would spiral into a global problem.

"We run out of oil reserves at about four weeks," Trump said in France. I'm not sure exactly what this means but clearly a deal at nearly any cost is necessary.

And, obviously, paying tolls to Iran for access to Hormuz is better than a closed Strait.

You people really have to find better news sources, or stop listening to "Tehran Tony". 🙄

"Yes, commercial ships are currently transiting the Strait of Hormuz, though traffic remains volatile and below pre-war levels. Following a preliminary U.S.-Iran peace deal on June 17, 2026, daily transits peaked at 55 vessels on June 20, despite conflicting claims from Iran regarding the waterway's closure."

🤔 Wasn't yesterday the 20th. 🙄

Someone could say that the EU is run and controlled by the U.S. Would you believe it? That is more true than anything Iran claims.

Anyone seen him? Not just on milk cartons. Easier to find Waldo!

"No, the new Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, has not been seen in public or on camera since taking power. He assumed his role following the death of his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in U.S. and Israeli airstrikes."

Someone killed the Ayatollah?

OVI +1

You people really have to find better news sources, or stop listening to "Tehran Tony"

OVI +1+

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Yeah lunatic islamists with nukes … What could possibly go wrong ?

And, obviously, paying tolls to Iran for access to Hormuz is better than a closed Strait.

Just heard again on the News … the Strait is NOT closed … Again … E.g. CENTCOM reported 55+ ships going thru.

Iran will never get any tolls from the Strait. As it is international waters. It does not belong to them.

Reported today on FOX from Maria Bartaromo[in case someone asks!] IIRC, a large primarily US based company that insures shipping, etc. Is going to organize some sort of conglomerate(?) of other companies in that type of business. To be able to get insurance if their very expensive ships get hit by what little is drones, missiles, etc. have left.

Another initiative I and many others like. Some of the Arab nations are actually build pipelines, etc. Other means to not have to rely on Iran's islamists and that Strait.

This would be very good even when Iran's islamists are gone. And they have a new gov't free of those moslem lunatics. And that nation can be a functioning member of the free world.

As again, Iran's islmaists can't be trusted. Even now the IRGC leadership is still threating the US, POTUS, etc. However, the POTUS had some characteristic gritty comments in reply. E.g. They try to close strait, they will not have a country. The IRGC leaders should close their mouths, etc. Stop supporting Hezbollah or the strikes will start again.

IMO and others that is not the best option. It is the only option.

The are still upset about the POTUS in his first term toasted Suleimani. Plus did similar to so much of Iran islamist leaders. E.g. the Ayatollah and many of his staff, etc. were also BBQ'd …

Iran is stalling again … That is how they roll.

The more they play and they stall, lie, etc. The worse it is going to be for them …

It's not clear what Trump meant by four weeks of oil reserves left, and the WH would not elaborate. US reserves are at their lowest level since 1983. Why he would tell the world we had four weeks left while working on the deal is inexplicable to me. No reverse engineering fits.

Legion true. They stalled with Obama 2 years.

They supposedly walked out of talks today because Trump said nasty things that hurt their feelings. 😭

They have no issues saying things.

Walkout:

We sink 2 tankers
Or
Take out a dam
Or
Take out two bridges
Or
Hit multi RG HQ and other facilities

Treat them as the animals they are, until they negotiate in good faith.

It's all they understand

Trump has to learn. Some things do not respond to kindness.

Sadly, it does seem that Iran is now stronger than ever, it has closed the straights and can do again. If it chooses to.

It has proved that those directing the operation are not of the same calibre as their predecessors.

It has been an expensive mess that need not have happened and has taken far longer than the two days we were told it would take.

There seems to be a lot of blinkered or naive people who think it went well for the USA..

As wargamers, most of us are familiar with Napoleon Bonaparte's famous observation:

"In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one."

Applied to the Iran War, it suggests that the side with the greater political will and determination was always likely to prevail. The Iranian leadership was fanatical, implacable and prepared to absorb enormous punishment while continuing the fight. By contrast, the US leadership had a far lower tolerance for a prolonged conflict and was ultimately unwilling to pay the political, economic and military costs required to force a decisive outcome.

In wargaming terms, one side failed a Morale test long before it ran out of combat power. Iran's leadership simply outlasted the will of its opponent. Game over.

According to one source today:

Straits:
"12 transits today, …
Neutral and European commercial tonnage: absent. "

Well the fact Europeans won't attempt it, should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone.

Isn't it blindingly obvious that Iran won this war? Or rather, US/Israel failed to achieve almost all of their objectives?

The goals and their achievements were covered in another Iranian thread. There were 6.

No not a loss, nor a victory, yet. Not quite the Battle of Fromelles, Gallipoli or Fall of Singapore you and Ochoin try to portray it as.

The fat lady ain't sung yet mate.

I would agree that the jury remains out but clearly the regime isn't changing and the President himself has stated Iran has a right to ballistic missiles. Nothing is agreed as of yet on nuclear options beyond Iran stating they will never develop nuclear weapons. The MOU addresses nothing about Iran funding proxies such as Houthis and Hezbollah nor does it address anything about missile range limitations. Hormuz was wide open before the war without tolls so even a best case agreement is simply a return to status quo. Other than the final form of the nuclear issue and the status of the 900 lbs of 60% enriched, I suspect the return of over $100 USD Billion in frozen assets plus sanction lifting along with whatever ( and from whom) the $300 USD Billion of reconstruction funding involves will be the stickiest political issues domestically. Selling a $400 USD+ Billion transfer from any combination of sources domestic and/or foreign will be a challenge and as unhappy as Israel is already, likely very unpopular there.

The MOU was an agreement to negotiate an agreement.

An agreement I and others don't see happening.

Some oil gets through and gas goes down.. maybe prices, as diesel here has dropped faster than gas.

Hezbollah will for sure break it (have already). Israel will retaliate (already have).
Iran will threaten the strait (again have and broken the MOU). Next Iran will fire a missile at someone, probably Israel. Israel will hit Iran. I believe sooner or later 💥

Our forces are still there.

Maybe it will last till midterms, but I doubt it. When you start seeing Rubio over Vance, times up.

Obviously Graham agrees:

"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday that Trump plans to take control of the Strait of Hormuz and impose tolls if diplomatic talks with Tehran fail.

"Let's try a diplomatic solution. I think it's going to fail," he said during an interview on CBS "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," before asking, "What happens next?"

"I spent four-and-a-half hours with President Trump on Friday. Here's what I think will happen next," Graham explained.

"If this deal fails, President Trump is going to take over the Strait of Hormuz by force," he warned.

"The United States will control the Strait of Hormuz. We'll charge a fee for all those who go through to pay for the operation and we're going to expand the Abraham Accords in calendar year 2026," Graham added.

Graham's remarks came as Vice President JD Vance, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met with the Iranian delegation in Switzerland for a first round of talks."

Yeah, that was Lindsay Graham on Sunday.
What will be the story on … Tuesday? I'm not so unkind as to ask about Monday.

None of this gets to the objectives, IMO. The negotiating team might as well take a tour of the Alps. Taking over the Strait? Occupation does not really solve the problem of the Iranian radical regime, the very heart of the matter, and it puts US forces in an indefinite self-inflicted deployment just to get back to a semblance of pre-war conditions.

Nothing worked, they will continue on their path with more determination. The US burned up a lot of weapons, money, and standing for no result. There are now probably strong supporters there whispering to use one as soon as they build one and any voices of restraint are going to be mum, asssuming there were any.

This little war is the USA's version of what happened to the UK in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Any military "victory" (and there is not really that much of it here anyway) will be lost in the concessions that will be made at the negotiations table. The USA cannot occupy the Hormuz Straits in any sustainable way – that is just fantasy. How many casualties will the US public accept in a real ground war for the straits?

OVI+1

The military are very successful as expected.
The diplomatic front was an abysmal failure.
No understanding of what NATO is for i.e. why article 5 applied to 9/11 but the UK couldn't use it over the Falklands in 1982. Nor why it couldn't be used over Iran and that member nations required a legal framework to get involved such as UN resolutions in the case of the Balkans or article 5 on 9/11.
Trump and his advisers didn't understand that.
If Iran wasn't to be trusted with the previous agreement then why should the current political system in Iran be trusted? Why is there suddenly trust that there will be an agreement that can be trusted? The main government setup of supreme leader and IRGC has not changed.
The threat of global economic impact has always been there and was the main reason prior President's didn't use force. Knowing that there was a limited time window before such economic impact the military strikes were not sufficient for the desired effect.
The end goals were not clear and maintained as Iran can now apparently keep ballistic missiles that originally was a goal to be destroyed. Seeing what Ukraine has achieved with drones was not taken into account with base defense not prepared and aircraft not dispersed for that threat.
The process for directing military action seemed divorced from what would be that strategic consequences if not operated separately from them. Too many optimists listening to what they wanted to hear such as Iran will rise up after many of those that previously did were killed.

I guess I'll do this in this thread as well.

These along with NO NUKEs and the destruction of the "dust", were the "official" goals of this conflict.

These and NOT Trump hyperbole goals, media made up goals, not Israel's goals, not those on TMP's goals, not the Democrats made up goals.

Not my goals: (Iranian leaders would be on their bellies, foot on their necks and preparing to sign a treaty with the blood running out of their noses. Only thing radical fundamentalist Islamists understand)

Everything between the quotes.

Ok the Objectives: (again)

I'll comment afterward.

"According to official transcripts and statements released directly by the White House and the Pentagonregarding Operation Epic Fury, the United States administration has outlined five specific, unchanging military and strategic goals. [1, 2]

Here are the exact objectives as stated verbatim by President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and official administration briefings: [1, 2]

* Obliterate Ballistic Missiles: Explicitly stated to "destroy Iran's missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones," systematically razing their missile factories and weapons stockpiles to the ground. [1, 2]

* Annihilate the Iranian Navy: Formally ordered to target and sink the Iranian Navy, mine-laying vessels, and maritime security infrastructure to permanently strip the regime's ability to control or disrupt global shipping lanes. [1, 2, 3]

* Dismantle the Defense Industrial Base: To completely crush Iran's domestic military manufacturing, including drone manufacturing plants, assembly warehouses, and logistics networks. [1, 2]

* Permanently Deny Nuclear Weapons: To completely eliminate any covert or overt pathway to a nuclear weapon by targeting weapons research labs, enrichment materials, and command bunkers. [1, 2]

* Sever Terrorist Proxies: To cut off all financial, logistical, and military support lines extending from Tehran to regional proxy networks. [1, 2]"

——
Missiles and missile mfg:
Partially accomplished.

"Allied operations have destroyed or severely degraded roughly 66% to 90% of Iran's missile, drone, and naval production facilities. However, the exact percentage of the actual missile inventory destroyed remains debated, as significant numbers of missiles and about half of Iran's mobile launchers survived the conflict."

The actual missile destruction is very much debated and based on the bias of reporting.

——
Iranian Navy:
Again partially completed.

"Recent Tally: Later Pentagon and operational assessments state that upwards of 60 to over 120 vessels—which includes large combat ships, logistics, and hundreds of small, unarmored craft run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—have been destroyed or heavily damaged."

Pretty much just small narco type ships and tiny subs left from what I can determine

——

Destruction of the defense industry.
Again partial and depends on bias of those reporting. As with all reporting, bias is extreme!

"Top U.S. and Israeli officials estimate that between 85% to 90% of Iran's defense-industrial base was damaged or destroyed during combat operations. U.S. Central Command reported that over 450 ballistic missile storage sites, 800 one-way attack drone storage facilities, and 90% of weapons factories were struck."

Probably high, but well over 50%

——-

Deny Nukes
I've covered in this thread before.

——-
Sever terrorists proxies.

Again a partial

Hezbollah continues, but involvement of others have been extremely limited or non existent.
When Iran is using their limited missiles and money on their own defense. Obviously can't supply or help their proxies.

So to conclude.

Objective success are mostly partial successes. No matter what all sides say.

Those were the objectives.

But until these attacks, no one impeded Iran at all. All money could and was used to build more of everything weapon wise. Supply proxies. Develop whatever else they chose to.

In a note, they were unimpeded in their pursuit of the death of the big and little Satans.

As to goals.

How are Iran's radical fundamentalist Muslims doing?

Yes, they want to bring it to your shores! 🤔 Maybe this migration of Muslims into the west, is part of that plan.

What was Edward's line in Braveheart? Ahh yes

"if the Scots cannot be removed by force, they will eliminate them by breeding them out. "

"The leaders of Iran view the global spread of Islam and the Islamic revolution as a fundamental religious and political duty. They envision this expansion as a struggle against "oppressors" and "global arrogance" to establish justice under Islamic governance. [1, 2, 3]

Exact statements from Iranian leadership outlining this stance include the following:

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (Founder of the Islamic Republic) [1, 2]

* Regarding the active global mission of the revolution, he stated: "We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'There is no god but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle." [1, 2, 3]

* In a 1980 address regarding isolation, he emphasized: "We should try hard to export our revolution to the world, and should set aside the thought that we do not export our revolution… We should clearly settle our accounts with the powers and superpowers and should demonstrate to them that, despite all the grave difficulties that we have, we shall confront the world with our ideology." [1, 2, 3]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader)

* Khamenei has framed the ultimate goal of establishing a global Islamic system as opposing tyranny and corruption, saying: "In the monotheistic view, religion is a comprehensive program for human life in all individual, social and political dimensions, and for this reason… the wicked, corrupt, arrogant colonialists and looters are against the religion which brings justice and stands for the oppressed." [1]

* Regarding the core priority of these efforts over the Iranian state itself, he stated: "It doesn't matter if we die. Iran is not important, Islam is important." [1]

* Addressing the global image and goals of the revolution, he stated: "The response of the Islamic Republic is to show its innocence to the world—to show that it is progressive and not reactionary, seeks justice and advocates justice, and is not oppressive and cruel." [1]"

I think it's not that there were no results. There were a number of important things that were successful on the conventional military side and I keep giving Trump credit for trying to make something happen with these very bad guys. But the strategic picture will not budge very much without regime change.

And if we shut out the usual POTUS chatter, we have hit them hard by any standard. But we are no safer from some fanatic with a dirty bomb, or a wave of suicide attacks, or a 9/11, than we were before because we could not break down and remove the leadership faction. Whether this was a stated objective does not matter, IMO. The other objectives are steps on the road to the only real resolution of the essential problem.

And some of the new objectives outlined in the proposed considerations in the MOU are not in the best interests of anyone but the Iranian fanatics. Give these people money on the scale suggested and you are funding terrorism, proxies, etc. in all probability, whether they use it directly or to supplant other funds. It is just as true now as it was when Obama tried it, but why such a massive infusion of cash now is suddenly okay looks like desperation. The art of the deal with a box of crayons. If we cannot rise above mere transactional deals with radical fanatics, none of the stated accomplishments will matter for long.

This war is not over. Breathing room and resupply from China and Russia is what a ceasefire means to these terrorists.

No tort. Not perfect. We have no idea what the final outcome of negotiations will be, if they ever conclude.

I don't have time this morning to answer are we better off, other than to say I think so. I stated what we had before we struck. They were already doing everything you said they may do.. unimpeded by anyone.

The dirty nuke by a radical Islamist? Tort that has and always will be a possibility for as long as radical fundamentalist Islamist exist. But it won't come from Iran right now.

All the countries that don't support our fight against Iran. Why haven't they banded together in the past or even currently to eliminate Hezbollah? The Houthis? Hamas? All terrorist and worthy of elimination. What about those in Nigeria?

Is it because they "mostly" have killed Jews, peaceful Muslims, black Christian Africans, US citizens?

"if we are quiet, maybe they will ignore us?" 😳

Shouldn't need the U.S. to lead there.

Sanctions are useless! Ask Russia.

Let me ask AI:

"European nations have not attempted to militarily eradicate Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis because they lack the military capacity to wage such extensive foreign wars, fear severe retaliatory terrorist attacks on their own soil, and prioritize diplomatic de-escalation over all-out conflict."

Well that answers that. Up to the U.S. and Israel.

Israel is so much larger than those old European powers? Let's hope Russia really does not decide to expand. 🙄

No understanding of what NATO is for i.e. why article 5 applied to 9/11 but the UK couldn't use it over the Falklands in 1982. Nor why it couldn't be used over Iran and that member nations required a legal framework to get involved such as UN resolutions in the case of the Balkans or article 5 on 9/11.
Trump and his advisers didn't understand that.

Nah – you don't know your own history. In 1982 the UK made an ALLY TO ALLY appeal for aid and did NOT invoke the NATO charter. The US responded with critical support as an ALLY to an ALLY in need.

When the US asked only for the use of bases we always use, to confirm overflight we always had as an ALLY TO ALLY appeal for support, and did NOT invoke NATO… these allies said NO! and then rushed to the cameras to pose and preen while attacking Trump and morally aligning themselves with one of the most murderous regimes on the planet. This was not a fine moment for them.

If Iran wasn't to be trusted with the previous agreement then why should the current political system in Iran be trusted? Why is there suddenly trust that there will be an agreement that can be trusted? The main government setup of supreme leader and IRGC has not changed.

Yep, I agree

The threat of global economic impact has always been there and was the main reason prior President's didn't use force. Knowing that there was a limited time window before such economic impact the military strikes were not sufficient for the desired effect.

Iran could always choose to create crisis, and has many times. The ecomic impact should be secondary.

The end goals were not clear and maintained as Iran can now apparently keep ballistic missiles that originally was a goal to be destroyed.

They started off clear, but wandered into regime change talk – I think there was an incorrect assumption that the leadership strikes would lead to collapse, but obviously that was wrong – not enough of the heirarchy was killed, we never got down to the "back benchers" who were more intersted in personal survival than personal power and ideology.

Seeing what Ukraine has achieved with drones was not taken into account with base defense not prepared and aircraft not dispersed for that threat.

Yes, better to learn this now than in a war with China.

The process for directing military action seemed divorced from what would be that strategic consequences if not operated separately from them. Too many optimists listening to what they wanted to hear such as Iran will rise up after many of those that previously did were killed.

Yes and no – I think the Iran uprising was a foolish thing to plan on, if they did. Even though Rubio was on message on 4 goals – destroy nuclear program, air force, navy, and military industrial capacity; and those goals were miltarily met, the US did not engage in a solid info war. I also think they did not expect 'allies' to flip and essentially take the moral side of the Mullahs just to flip Trump the finger for personal domestic political gain.

Yes, we have no choice but to wait and see, hope for the best. But the handwriting is on the wall for this chapter. I am always in favor of outsmarting opponents with diplomacy, which requires a high level of smarts, but with the Iranian leaders this option is not an option…they do not deal except to deceive.

One thing I've learned in this conflict, we do not know the facts or what is going on behind the scenes. All the "in the know unnamed sources" are as useless as on a boar hog!

Story just over the wires:

"52m ago
U.S. and Qatar will ensure released Iranian assets do not finance terrorism, says Vance

Vice President JD Vance said Monday that Washington can ensure any frozen Iranian funds released as a result of the ongoing negotiations will not finance terrorism.

"If we ever unfreeze Iranian assets, we can ensure that … Iranian money goes to help the people of Iran and not to fund terrorism," Vance told reporters Monday, after the first round of direct talks with Iran since President Trump and his Iranian counterpart signed a memorandum of understanding last week.

Vance said Mr. Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, along with Qatar, which mediated the talks along with Pakistan, had come up with "a very interesting solution" to ensure that any seized financial assets released to Iran are not misused.

"If there is any frozen Iranian assets that are unfrozen, then we have approval over that process; the Qataris have approval over that process," he said.

Vance called it "a classic Trump deal, where if Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," suggesting some of the money could be used to purchase American corn, soy and wheat.

AFP/CBS"

At the beginning of the conflict the Secretary of State made a comment that the US needed to attack immediately as Iran was building up a huge shield of ballistic missiles and drones. He made a comment, and I am paraphrasing, that if they delayed, the consequences of attacking later would be too high.

Now in the conflict the US has used a lot of precision weapons. Depending upon the weapon type, I have seen estimates of 3-5 years to bring stock levels back to pre-war levels. We can argue about exacting timings, but it is in the order of years and not months.

The real question becomes how quickly can Iran replace their drones and ballistic missiles. No doubt there has been significant damage to factories. But drone factories are low tech, so I would estimate months to replace them. There is also a possibility of importing drones from the mass drone producing factories in Russia. Ballistic missiles are going to take longer to replace. I don't believe that they are as technologically advanced as US missiles, so I would probably estimate a couple of years, but that is just a guess.

What this indicates to me, is that the US is in need of some low cost/rapid deployment drone/missile defense and some low cost/rapid deployment offensive options. Otherwise Iran is going to reach that critical size barrier that the Secretary of State warned about before the US can re-arm.

As to a key difference between Trump's proposed nuke deal and Obama's nuke deal. Because as I know, the MSM is portraying no differences between the two.

Obama's deal had no teeth. "You be nice, we'll be nice." Renewed sanctions are useless, ask Russia.

Trump's deal has teeth. The military is there and the leaders that are left, know he will use it. He has twice now.

Just 1 of many:

"Unpredictability as a Strategic Tool: The Iranian leadership remains highly wary of Trump's self-proclaimed "instinct" for rolling the dice on lethal force—such as the unilateral strikes on Iran or the early 2026 raid against Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Because Trump acts outside traditional multilateral frameworks (like the UN or EU), Iranian strategists know they cannot rely on international law or European allies to buffer them from American firepower."

Another thing i thought of while listening to the back and forth yesterday.

The Iranians constantly "Trash Talk". If you haven't played football or basketball in the US, you may not be familiar with trash talk. Look it up. Started with the black athletes, but has since spread.

The difference between Trump and any other politician that we've had in the US as President, is Donald Trump "trash talks" back.

And people don't know when he means it and when it's just "trash talk".

35th, I just don't buy that as Article 1 of the MOU specifically states that he will not threaten them.

"I am always in favor of outsmarting opponents with diplomacy, which requires a high level of smarts, but with the Iranian leaders this option is not an option…they do not deal except to deceive."

This is wrong.

Diplomacy is difficult. It requires patience, consistency and a willingness to deal with people you neither trust nor like.

The idea that diplomacy was impossible with Iran strikes me as too convenient. The US negotiated with Stalin's Soviet Union during World War II, Mao's China during the Cold War and the USSR throughout decades of nuclear confrontation. None of those regimes had a reputation for honesty but accords were struck, mutually beneficial agreements were reached.

The purpose of diplomacy is not to make friends. It is to advance your interests and avoid wars when possible.

Perhaps Iran was negotiating in bad faith. Certainly the amateurish Americans who were tasked to find the off-ramp, handled it poorly. But declaring diplomacy impossible is often what governments say after diplomacy has failed.

The real test of diplomatic skill is not talking to allies. It is finding a way to talk to adversaries.

If diplomacy only worked with honest and agreeable people, there would be little need for diplomats.

+1 to ochoin on his correct observations
Several people involved with this discussion and previous discussions on other threads about Iran need to realize that they don't need to join in lock step and defend a flawed policy.

Martyn first the MOU is a generalized deal to make a deal. An agreeMent to come to a concert agreement with specifics.

Will that happen? I don't know.

But the stipulation is, they must adhere to that agreement. He and the administration have said, or else it starts again.

He has done it twice, with Israel. Israel is dying to go again.

If I was a betting man, I'd say it starts again.

Sometimes feels like pirates of the Caribbean

"First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

Australia finally get troops and ships involved?

If not, their prophetic "spokesman's" views carry no weight in the conflict.

No skin in the game… not even tax money.

Ochoin -1

Ochoin….I do not disagree in general, but you cannot refer to Stalin, Mao, etc. as equivalents of the age old theocratic suicidal fanaticism of Iran's terrorist leadership and followers, my opinion. They are driven by their version of their faith to act accordingly with assurances of afterlife reward.

Tort correct about their leadership. If one has not read their religious books, the radicalized versions of those who interpret them, the "true" histories of their conquests, what Irans specific leadership has written and said about their goals and their interpretation of the 12th Imam… one has no concept of what is going on.