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

"The U.S. is clawing back oil sanctions waivers offered to Iran as part of a framework deal that kicked off a two-month negotiating period after Iran attacked commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz Monday and Tuesday.

A U.S. official confirmed that three commercial vessels were struck by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz between Monday and Tuesday, reigniting tensions after President Donald Trump said the U.S. had given Tehran "a week off" during funeral ceremonies for slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei."

As President Trump and the administration have repeatedly affirmed, the MOU in effect with Iran is entirely performance-based.

Iran will only reap benefits if they exhibit good behavior," a U.S. official said, confirming the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) would revoke the sanctions waivers.

"Iran's actions in the Strait were wholly unacceptable to the United States and will be met with consequences. Our negotiators continue to work in good faith towards a final deal," the official continued. "

Options for victory in Iran

"…The US approach to this war, which has been extremely restrained by most historical standards – certainly far from any sort of Clausewitzian total war – has been unsuccessful in coercing or collapsing the Iranian regime. It seems that the Trump administration is seeking two contradictory goals: On the one hand, they would like to coerce the Iranian regime into surrendering power, which would likely mean the deaths of many of their leaders: any new regime would seek justice for the various crimes of the prior regime. On the other, there seems to be a desire to maintain ‘stability,' and to prevent Iran from turning into a failed state. As a set of war aims, these two goals at best pull in different directions, and at worst achieving both at once violates the laws of physics.

Since June 17 there has been, formally, a deal. The ‘Islamabad Memorandum,' mediated by Pakistan and Qatar and signed by Trump and Pezeshkian, trades an end to the fighting for the reopening of Hormuz – and trades away nearly everything else: the naval blockade lifted, waivers for Iranian crude exports, Iranian assets unfrozen, a $300 USD billion reconstruction framework, and, remarkably, the ‘status quo' of Iran's nuclear program, enrichment included, pending a final agreement due within sixty days. Call it a sixth option: negotiated containment. It is the option the administration has chosen for now, and it is not a path to victory – it is a path back to 1979, which is why it does not appear on the list below. Last weekend's exchange – an Iranian drone into a tanker, American strikes in reply, Iranian missiles at bases in two Gulf states – shows how much weight the paper will bear.

The military could likely make it impossible for the Iranian regime to govern or to project military power, by destroying their ability to generate revenue and their military and industrial capacity. The leaders can be killed. With support for people on the ground, the regime could be toppled. But this will not generate stability.

At this point there are five options for the United States to achieve a victory in Iran. My sense is that the first is the best; none of the others combines political feasibility with a high likelihood of success:…"

link

Armand

@35th OVI

For a figure that supposedly played no role in your reasoning, it certainly generated a remarkable amount of supporting argument.

My original point was not about whether Iran is a bad actor, nor was it about whether military action can only be justified if 42,000 protesters were killed. My point was about how readily people accept claims that reinforce conclusions they already hold.

That is why I brought up SBminisguy's reference to 42,000 dead protesters. The number appeared to be accepted and repeated without much scrutiny because it supported an existing belief. It was an example of how people can make decisions or reinforce opinions based on claims that are poorly sourced, weakly verified, or simply repeated often enough to sound authoritative. Additionally, demands to debunk an unverifiable number approach frustrating levels both of nonsense and impossibility.

When I questioned the origin of the figure, the discussion became a defense of the number and the sources behind it. Yet after it became apparent that no reliable, independently verified basis for the claim had been established, the response shifted to "the number never mattered" or that I was somehow fixated on it.

I wasn't interested in the number for its own sake. I was interested in what it illustrated. Namely, how easily people can become attached to claims that confirm what they already believe, and how difficult it becomes to separate the strength of the evidence from the strength of the conclusion.

The broader point remains the same: if individuals can accept weakly supported claims because they fit a preferred narrative, administrations and governments are not immune to the same tendency. Poorly grounded assumptions, unverified reports, and conclusions that feel right can influence decision-making at every level.

Also, I'm curious how you reconcile two positions you've expressed over time.

On one hand, you've often argued that people are susceptible to propaganda, misinformation, emotional appeals, ideological promises, and confirmation bias. On the other hand, you've said that populations "brought it on themselves" when they end up under bad governments.

How much responsibility do you assign to ordinary people who were persuaded, deceived, intimidated, or simply born into a system they never chose? For example, what level of responsibility would you assign to an Iranian born in 2005 for decisions made during the 1979 Revolution?

Silly game. "If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it?".

"Should the allies have held the Japanese baby born in 44 and living in Hiroshima for the decisions of their parents? "

"Should the allies hold the German child born the year before the Dresden fire bombing responsible for the decisions of his parents bringing Hitler to power?"

In the end, they were anyway.

Should the radical fundamentalist Muslims in the planes have held those in the twin towers responsible for the perceived evils of our leaders or the west in general?

They did anyway.

Again silly game.

👍 I hope the boats were loaded with Guards when hit.

"US Central Command said in a statement that its forces completed a new round of retaliatory strikes against Iran on Tuesday, hitting more than 80 targets in response to recent attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

"US forces struck Iranian air defense systems, command and control networks, coastal radar sites, anti-ship missile capabilities, and more than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small boats in and near the strait to degrade Iran's ability to continue attacking international commerce flowing through the international trade corridor," the statement said.

"The unwarranted aggression by Iranian forces is a clear and dangerous violation of the ceasefire and undermines freedom of navigation. CENTCOM forces remain postured and prepared to hold Iran accountable when the agreement is not adhered to or obeyed," the statement added."

A peaceful flyover of one of those funeral marches might also send a message…

"A peaceful flyover of one of those funeral marches might also send a message…"

Did Iran "allow" itself to become a target? I doubt they're unconcerned about casualties. Rather, they may have believed that showing resolve was less dangerous than appearing to yield under pressure.

Iranian leadership possibly believed there was a propaganda advantage either way. If they weren't attacked, they can claim "divine protection" had worked. If they were attacked, they could portray themselves as having again stood up to a far stronger opponent and used that to bolster domestic support and reinforce their image abroad.

Can you see the political value in demonstrating resilience as much as military success? I suspect the funeral processions were intended to send a message—not just to the U.S., but to the Iranian public and to Iran's regional allies and adversaries: "We're still here."

And they are.

"We're still here.
And they are."

Well some this morning are no longer there. 👍

@Bill

I've suggested that on multiple occasions. I said let Israel do it. They do those better than we do. They have had many of their civilians killed by Iranians and their proxies. Seems only fair.

Head of NATO, Rutte this morning

Reuters in Al Jazeera no sure

"Defending the U.S. Strikes on Iran

* Justified the Retaliation: Rutte stated, "When you have a ceasefire and Iran is basically violating the ceasefire, I think it is totally crucial that the U.S. forcefully react." [1]
* Degrading Iran's Capabilities: He emphasized that what the U.S. is doing to degrade Iran's military capabilities is "very important for European security, for the Middle East, [and] vital for Israel itself." [1]
* Demanding the Strait of Hormuz Reopen: He noted that Iran's blockade of the vital shipping lane threatens 20% of the world's oil supply, stating, "Everybody agrees this strait cannot stay closed. It has to open up again as soon as possible." [1, 2, 3, 4]"

FYI, you will know the door is closed, if the U.S. invites Israel to join the festivities again.

You're answering a different question. Innocent people often suffer the consequences of decisions they did not make. However, the actual question was whether they are responsible for those decisions? Responsibility and consequences are not the same thing.

The child in Hiroshima suffered consequences.That does not mean the child was responsible for Japanese policy.

The office worker in the Twin Towers suffered consequences. That does not mean the office worker was responsible for U.S. foreign policy.

Also, your response:

"Can you prove the intelligence was incorrect?"

Is fundamentally flawed. It is not incumbent on those that receive intelligence to either have to prove it wrong or otherwise accept it.

Further, the mere existence of intelligence does not end the inquiry. Information can seem plausible, and later turn out to be incomplete or mistaken. That's precisely why skepticism exists; because sound intel can survive scrutiny

Thus, claims should be vetted, assumptions should be challenged, and conclusions should not become more certain than the evidence supporting them.

That's true whether we're talking about protest death tolls, WMD programs, election claims, intelligence assessments,financial bubbles, military planning.

The lesson isn't never trust intelligence. Rather, the lesson is Intelligence is evidence, not proof.

In cases where the decision maker's approach is something like: "My mind on Iran was decided a long time ago", new evidence might be evaluated through that lens rather than the other way around and it is thus, ironically, more necessary to try to look at intel both critically and objectively to avoid compromising decisions.

As to your requested answer. Maybe I'll follow the lead of those who claim the Iranians and other radical fundamentalist Muslims, are justified in their hate of the U.S. and the west, on TMP and elsewhere, with my response:

"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

The Mullahs so love to quote the Quran, I'll use exodus. 😏

Now for you:

Was the attack on Iran justified, after decades of attacks on our innocents and our allies, by Iran and her proxies, (deaths, injuries, torture and monetary)?

Long overdue?

Yes, then we agree. No other justifications necessary.

No? Just how many dead Americans will it take? Someone close to you?

You can only turn so many cheeks.

I would have backed any president, or leader, who had punched Iran in the past.

The POTUS has shown disdain for the American intel services in the past. How much he takes in or considers is unknown. His personality in public does not give us much to go on. Again, surely the Pentagon advised him on the consequences to the Strait. Did he go with his gut here, as he sometimes says? I do not believe we will ever know. He is protected from scrutiny and uses the media as a source of intel on politics and trends. He may also be shielded from negative info. His public pronouncements can be contradictory. And many of his primary advisors are not experienced in high level international spy craft, global power strategy and policy and high level global strategic military planning and objectives.

It may be time to give our military a chance to refit, go back to the drawing board at the WH. If we don't eliminate the terror gang running Iran and somehow get regime change, this war will not end.

Tort

"If we don't eliminate the terror gang running Iran and somehow get regime change, this war will not end."

Again. This war has been going on since 79. Iran and her proxies have been fighting it pretty much unabated, except for Israel.

We have let them pretty much kill and maim our people at will, with nothing but a slap on the wrist.

War had been here!

If we stop today, they will still come to kill our people. It may not be Iran directly. But another radical fundamentalist Muslim ally.

Actually the war has never ended since 600.

Whether an attack was justified is not the same question as whether the evidence was sound, the intelligence was accurate, or the planning was effective.

A decision can be justified and still be based on poor assumptions. Likewise, a decision can be unjustified even if some of the supporting facts are correct.

When you say:

"I would have backed any president, or leader, who had punched Iran in the past."

it largely confirms that the conclusion predates the evidence under discussion.

That also explains why debates over casualty figures, intelligence confidence levels, or planning assumptions rarely seem to matter. Those things were never the foundation of the position in the first place.

The same tendency appears when you say:

"I still say, let Israel hit the funerals."

At that point, the discussion is no longer about military necessity, intelligence quality, proportionality, or strategic outcomes. It becomes a discussion about punishment.

You appear to divide the world into people deserving protection and people deserving consequences. Once a group is placed into the latter category—terrorists, Hamas supporters, Iranian regime supporters, rioters, criminals, and so forth—concern about proportionality, mitigation, unintended consequences, or long-term outcomes seems to diminish considerably.

That is your prerogative.

What remains unexplained is why the rest of us should substitute outrage for evidence, punishment for strategy, or moral certainty for planning.

In a democracy, citizens are not merely entitled to ask whether an enemy is bad. They are entitled to ask whether a policy is likely to work.

The relevant questions are not simply who deserves punishment, but what achieves the objective, what evidence supports the decision, what assumptions are being made, and what consequences are likely to follow.

As Hannah Arendt observed, terrible acts are often justified not by abandoning morality, but by narrowing morality until only one group counts.

I know what you are saying, 35th, and we agree on the end game here. I would still prefer to fight them on their own terms in covert fashion rather than destroy everything there if we cannot get at the core of the fanatic leadership issue.

Incavart….the POTUS goals for this war were to keep them from having any nuclear capabilities, not give them money, allow no ballistic missiles, unconditional surrender. All of which has been changed by POTUS. We would allow nukes for power, give them a ton of money, let them have some missiles. Whatever happened, the real goal of ending the terror wars has not been reached. Back to the drawing board….imo.

Game On!

And remember, Trump's critics clamored for continued war in order to say Trump was weak and a quitter for trying to negotiate a flawed ceasefire. Will they now applaud his actions??

Trump Says US–Iran Ceasefire Is Over After Hormuz Strikes

…U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the ceasefire with Iran is effectively over but that he will allow negotiations between Washington and Tehran to continue.

"For me, I think it's over," Trump responded when asked by reporters about the status of the ceasefire, which was extended when the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding last month to give a window for talks on a broader U.S.–Iran peace deal.

"It's just a waste of time dealing with them," Trump added, with his remarks coming on the sidelines of the two-day NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, just hours after U.S. forces struck Iranian targets in what the United States described as retaliation for attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

link

Incavart,

Has Iran and their proxies done enough to the U.S. and our allies since 1979, to have justified this conflict?

Simple, yes or no?

My initial justification came in 1979 with the embassy takeover. It hit a boiling point for me in 2nd Iraq. It hit volcanic with the October surprise.

@ Tortorella

That is really the question, isn't it?

Whether one supported the strike or not, success has to be measured against the objectives that were stated at the outset, not simply whether Iran suffered damage.

If the original objectives were no nuclear capability, no ballistic missile capability, no concessions, and unconditional surrender, then the relevant question is how much of that was actually achieved and at what cost?

Otherwise we risk evaluating the operation by whether we enjoyed hitting Iran rather than whether it produced the intended outcome.

@35thOVI

I think there is a tendency in these discussions to treat punishment and success as the same thing. Iran has been provocative for a long time but whether the response is proportional is up for debate.

What is not up for debate is whether it is prudent for a Super Power to instigate a conflict without a good plan. Our military and Intel services are capable of creating such plans and yet, 4 months in, we seem to have no control over the matter. And I'm not talking about victory conditions, we don't seem to even have a mappable outcome back to the ante-conflict status quo.

Which goes to show that an enemy can be damaged, embarrassed, and made to suffer costs without the underlying objectives being achieved.

Thus, the question is not simply whether Iran deserved to be hit. The question is whether the operation produced the political and strategic outcome that was promised; to the extent that any outcome was even clearly articulated.

I hope that in the near future, you can point to this post and tell me I was wrong, but for the time being the situation looks very tangled.

Very wordy, but dodging the original question twice now.

"Iran has been provocative for a long time but whether the response is proportional is up for debate." 🤔

Out of proportion for 1 dead American in the past?

Out of proportion for 10 dead Americans in the past?

Out of proportion for 100 dead Americans in the past?

1000?

5000?

How many dead and wounded Americans make the response proportional?

I'm sure there is a number. Please tell us.

If we add Isrealis, citizens of Bahrain? Etc. Now what is proportional?

Maybe if we throw in someone you actually care about. Then is the response proportional?

I can and will throw that card on table.

So for me….. it's not near proportional enough!

May tonight's attacks be even more successful.

Like I said before, the Iranian regime has chosen the path of nukes, proxies, attacks on us and our allies, shipping disruptions, the whole bit. No more excuses, no more "strategic patience" that just lets them get closer to the bomb while we talk ourselves in circles. No "proportional" guff.

If the current crop of mullahs and IRGC hardliners won't negotiate in good faith—real, verifiable, enforceable stuff like full dismantlement, no enrichment path to weapons, proxies standing down, inspections with teeth – then screw it. We start working our way down the leadership list with precision targeted strikes on leadership, command nodes, enablers, going after the guys actually calling the shots and blocking any off-ramp. Make life uncomfortable for any IRGC and regime members and families abroad -- cut 'em off. Deport them. Sieze their assets. Keep the pressure surgical but relentless until you get to people who are willing to deal like adults who want their country to survive this century.

I don't mean betting on some kind of regime-change fantasy where we occupy the place or some America-loving Iranians pop-up to take over and invite us to build a Disneyland and a coca cola factory, but pruning the obstructionists so someone pragmatic can finally cut a real bargain. That's it. That's the goal. No nukes for them, ever. Attacks don't get a pass anymore. Make defiance hurt worse than compliance,and none of the stupd "proportionate response" stupidity.

Measure everything by results—enrichment gone, incidents stopped, energy lanes open—not press releases or hope. Allies step up or shut up. Yeah, it's ugly work, but unless you deal with it now you end up with bigger problems later. Human nature doesn't reward weakness. Enforce the red lines, impose the costs, and adjust down the food chain until reality bites them hard enough to change the behavior. Simple as that. No theater, just outcomes.

+1 SB similar to what I have been saying. The all out destruction of the country makes no sense, nor does regime change by outright military force. Destabilize and undermine the bad guys, take ‘em out until they cannot function as an organization.

Don't totally disagree. I want them punished.

But.. If we could kill every one of the Guard and every radical fundamentalist Muslim in the country…. I would be a lot happier.

I still think we are being too surgical in our strikes. They have never cared who they kill, men, women, children…. Their reasoning: They are All infidels! "Let Allah sort them out".

If it looks military, destroy it. If it floats and belongs to them, sink it. Start taking out ports, one by one. Blow the bridges (which we started yesterday). I'm not adverse to hitting those funerals and electricity. If even suspect a hq is buried with leadership in it, bunker bust them. Anything until the pain is unbearable.

Unfortunately, I still think they hope to negotiate.

Why? Because Israel has not been released.

Right now, they seem to be attempting a lot of "blinding" strikes. Could there be an ultimate purpose? 🤔

Who knows.

Tortorella +1

@35th

I still think we are being too surgical in our strikes. They have never cared who they kill, men, women, children…. Their reasoning: They are All infidels! "Let Allah sort them out".

We don't have to become them to defeat them. And while I don't care much for "hearts and minds" strategy, at least the Iranian people can understand we only want their regime to play ball, not destroy them all and are taking as much care as we can to minimize civiliam casualties.

In fact -- maybe we need to mix it up! In addition to bombs, do a "Tehran Airlift" and do a mission where we drop "red cross" style care packages with basic medicines, water purfication tablets and filters, vitamins, MREs, spice packets, energy bars and candies, sterno can heaters, underwear, feminine products. Maybe also small disposable blue-tooth capable AM Radio/MP3 player/recorders preloaded with popular pop music and some propaganda, and dump a bunch of starlink terminals and phones as well so we can start letting Iranians communicate with the world again and record what they are experiencing and seeing. So when the regime moves to sieze this helpful aid it reinforces Public sentiment against them.

So they can see we're trying to help them and hurt the regime.

Brilliant! This is how you fight smarter…. +1 again SB, would you mind running this op for us?

SB I'll say the same here as in another thread.

There comes a point with some countries and individuals, when the gloves must come off. That point with me comes when the countries or individuals you are fighting continue follow a path of uncivilized warfare themselves.

In this case not only have they done so for decades, they are also consummate liars and deceivers.

Every possible avenue has been offered to Iran, multiple times! By many presidents.

Gloves off!

I read nothing about attacks last night….. MISTAKE!

….,

Your ideas are nice and I won't say they "might" not have an effect.

But like the arms we gave to the Kurds to distribute that they kept. I believe all this "nice stuff" would be confiscated and kept by the guard and distributed to supporters of the hardliners.

Even if a few hearts were won, what good will those people be, if like now, they do and achieve nothing?

Postscript 🤔

Just having these products may get the person with it hauled off to prison, or shot, with this regime. It's been done for much less.

I believe all this "nice stuff" would be confiscated and kept by the guard and distributed to supporters of the hardliners.

Yep -- certainly would cause more tension against the regime, wouldn't it?

Maybe. But hasn't gotten us any closer to them doing anything.

Because we have not tried it… there are millions of people in Iran who are not killers. To be recognized with a gesture of support matters, it's human nature. To be punished for it may foster more resentment and resolve. In the meantime a wide array of continuous disruptive and aggressive actions against the regimehas just as good a chance as anything else at the point. And that means hitting the right targets with everything: outright termination of key bad guys, hitting their financial resources, disrupting communications, blowing up supplies and weapons, taking hostages, destroying residences, sewing distrust among the factions, cyber attacks, etc.

I don't know the details of how to pull it off, but I bet if certain countries pooled their intelligence service talents and resources, plenty of disruption could develop.

A Decapitated Triumph: Why Iran's Survival Is Not a Strategic Victory

link

Armand

U.S.-Iranian Nuclear Talks: Three Headaches

link

Alarming new satellite images show signs Iran may be trying to rebuild suspected nuclear facilities

link

Armand

Assassinations, Special Forces raids and other covert operations may create the impression that you're "doing something" but can they really alter the strategic situation in the current Iran conflict?

History suggests they rarely do so on their own. Commando raids and the SAS achieved some notable successes during WWII but it was large-scale conventional campaigns—culminating in operations such as D-Day—that ultimately defeated Nazi Germany.

If military force is to produce a decisive political outcome, is there any substitute for committing substantial conventional forces? Unpalatable as it is.

If not, what are the realistic options? Negotiate and accept a new regional balance of power with Iran as a major regional actor, or commit ground forces, accept the likely casualties, and attempt to secure key objectives such as the Strait of Hormuz? And if the latter, what then? How do you turn military success into a lasting political settlement?

I hate to sound negative but if posters here are grappling for a solution, don't worry—so are the policymakers in Washington.

Ochoin – Iran is not Nazi Germany, though I see your point to some extent. Top tier special forces are not the same as resistance movements, CIA, Mossad type resources are experienced and devious. Get the general population to see we are trying to help them, assure them, drop goodies, etc. You can still target the Guard and the leaders with conventional military strikes. We need a reset.

Tortorella-I agree Iran isn't Nazi Germany—that was simply an illustration of the broader principle that covert action and special operations, however skilfully executed, rarely achieve decisive strategic or political objectives by themselves.

I'm also sceptical that "dropping goodies" is enough to persuade a population to overthrow an entrenched regime. History suggests that's a far taller order than it sounds.

Targeting IRGC leaders and military infrastructure may certainly weaken the regime but does it achieve the desired political end-state? Even if yet another Khamenei were killed, what if he were simply replaced by yet another Supreme Leader with similar views? Would anything fundamental have changed?

If the objective is regime change, who fills the vacuum? If it isn't regime change, what does success actually look like?

That's the dilemma I was trying to get at. Tactical successes are relatively easy to identify; defining—and achieving—a durable strategic success is much harder.

This idea just feels like someone caught in a cleft stick, grasping at straws and unable to see the wood for the trees (—apologies for mixing my Woodland Scenics metaphors).

It is quicksand. We have gotten pulled in and we don't know how to get out.

Oh, topics like this are still running?
Top of the page?
Cool.
I've been incommunicado for the last three days. 😄🍺
Nothing has changed.

Good to see you back, John. A touch of your pragmatism is always welcome.

And of course this thread is still running. So is the two-week war against Iran.

link

The thread (& the war) will be running a – long- time.

Iran isn't Nazi Germany

No and it isn't WWII either …

Top tier special forces are not the same as resistance movements, CIA, Mossad type resources are experienced and devious. Get the general population to see we are trying to help them, assure them, drop goodies, etc. You can still target the Guard and the leaders with conventional military strikes.

Yes that is a reasonable and logic assessment. Based on fact … not emotion …

Bottom line surgical strikes must continue. And it is not just me who is saying that. But a large group of retired senior US Military Officers. So I'll take their comments forged with massive amounts of combat experience, training etc. Over some here. Or even in much of the media in general.

When some have the pedigrees of those retired senior officers. I'll consider taking many posts here as more than just rhetoric, musings, utter drivel, etc., …

It is quicksand. We have gotten pulled in and we don't know how to get out.

We know and can … it just may not be moving as fast as some think it should … Again I'll refer to the many retired senior officers' comments.

Yes, they know, have more experience, training, etc. than anyone here … Even I know that and I was only an Army O-3 …

I would pay to know about the conversation that John and Mr. D had at the Dawghouse…

Armand

The "goodies", probably not the best way to describe things like link terminals and phones, along with other practical items are also psychological, confirming there is more going on than your government tells you, and the enemy might be your friend. It's is only one part of building consensus around action and change…

I remember going to a lecture in the 2010-2015 time period that was discussing the changing Iranian age demographics and the pressure that would naturally mount for political change in the following 25 years.

The problem with being attacked from the outside is that people in the country tend to rally around the flag. You saw the effect after 9/11 in the US.
It is the same in families. I can have a go at my brother, but if you do it for the same thing I will defend him.

Much as it is an appealing concept to think that supporting Iranian citizens to overthrow the regime, it has become very difficult to enact such a policy. I am not saying it is impossible, but the hurdles are huge. I am also suggesting that the Iranian people would want to know what is on the other side, and if that happens to be a US backed puppet regime, then that is not going to be popular.

Ochoin,

I think you hit on the name for this war. The Two Week War. Perfect!

The "goodies", probably not the best way to describe things like link terminals and phones, along with other practical items are also psychological, confirming there is more going on than your government tells you, and the enemy might be your friend. It's is only one part of building consensus around action and change…

yes in any conflict/battle, etc. Commo, Command and Control + Intel is critical to plan, etc. It always has to be a consideration …

I think you hit on the name for this war. The Two Week War. Perfect!

Only if one does not take into a number of considerations. E.g. Iran is 3-4 bigger than e.g. Iraq.

Iran's theocratic leaders and fanatical minions, which are only about 20% for Iran entire population. Are like the IJF's in WWII. They are willing to die for their cause. And that should be a priority.

As even before the US dropped nukes on Japan. The IJFs had suffered severe attrition. And in some of the later battles IJF forces were starting to surrender. Which almost never happened before …

Iran's military assets including C3I, fanatical islamists, have taken approx. 90% losses their forces.

They claim the Strait is closed. However, they only have assets to fire a few drones, missiles or maybe launch a few little boats. This should be obvious to any of the airchair GENs here. I.e. Because they lost again, approx. 90% of all their military assets . You know it is called attrtion …

Iran's threat to close the Straits is almost more saber rattling, propaganda, etc. They have hit very few ships trying to go thru the Straits. It has more to do with plank owners and insurance companies. Then an actual threat to destroy all the ships there …

Oh and BTW in most cases as conflict is not a two-week endeavor. It is not a drive thru eatery. The length is based on how long the enemy is willing to fight. Plus how much damage has been incurred on the enemy's forces, assets, leadership etc.

Iran is just more than willing to die fighting. So that being said that should be the USA's and IDF's major plan of action.

As we see now Iran is openly threating to kill the POTUS. That should be the signal to finish them off. E.g. IIRC two more CVN Grps are enroute to the region. They may be just rotating out the CVN's etc. there. Regardless … the US is not going to let Iran's fanatics think they will win on any level.

But some in Congress, the media, etc. seem they are carrying Iran's islamists' water. For all the reason we have discussed … before …

E.g. We see with the Soccer matches in the US. Many foreign visitors are very surprised to find the USA is not at all like the worldwide media has reported.

Thanks, Grattan. Prediction is a fraught exercise but claiming it'd be over in "two weeks" for over three months stretched the credibility a bit: 37 times say the people who keep count.

YouTube link

Is there anyone left who believes the war is nearing an end?

I think Martyn has "hit the nail on the head'.

The regime in Iran will change when it changes & not a second before.

Yes, and how many times has victory been announced.

Errata:

Iran is openly threating to kill the POTUS.

Should read – threatening to kill the POTUS.

Let's Tell Some Truth About What Really Happened With The Supposed Plan To Arm The Kurds In Iran And Overthrow The Ayatollahs

link

Armand