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

The Kurds have repeatedly found themselves courted when they are strategically useful, only to be disappointed when larger geopolitical priorities change.

When their involvement in this war was touted two weeks ago….sorry, several months ago, they wisely decided not to.

Reports are the Kurds and IRGC already had a few fire fights. It is to their advantage to not support Iran's islamists. Again we really don't know what is actually going on the ground. Regardless of what some here say or many in the media. If some here channeling Nostradamus for actuate/factual comments … they need to change the channel.

.sorry, several months ago, they wisely decided not to.

With the limited accurate intel being released/reported to the media, etc. How would you know that ? I know many experts here have knowledge beyond many of us. But what sources are saying all this ?

The same ones that keep saying the Straits are closed ? Or Iran is "winning". The war is lost because it has lasted more than 2 weeks ?

Yes those are accurate comments, considering they are biased and uninformed, etc. …

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.

This is not the USA with 9/11. The US may have some divisions. But the US population is not abused, oppressed, tortured, killed, etc. by a gov't run by religious fanatics. Regardless of what some in Congress, the media, etc. And yes slavery was bad … but it has not been practiced since the end of the ACW.

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.

Not a good comparison … For the reason I posted above.

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.

Yes & no … E.g. how many countries occupied by the Axis did not have active insurgencies ? Not that many, e.g. however in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Poland, all the way to the P.I., etc. So are the IRGC/Basji tougher, meaner, etc. than the Nazis and IJFs ?

Again, I don't think an underground anti-islamists movement is getting much press. For obvious reasons. Hence a clandestine insurgency works best if it stays under the radar. And they may not be ready to attack Iran's islamists … yet ?

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.

I don't think that is an accurate conclusion. Based on what Iranians here who escaped from Iran say. And again what is the source of this conclusion. Just because it is not in the biased media means little …

BTW the US knows how to run an insurgency with the locals …

There may be many people in Iran hardened against the US by Trump's attacks. Human nature. And Trump himself has made comments that could drive this even more. Nobody but him has said anything about ending Iranian civilization. But maybe there are enough who see their leaders as the problem to form some resistance…..if they get some encouragement and support from covert forces as well as the US military on the outside. And maybe someone will tell them that most Americans want this war to end, not wipe them out. Not Trump's goal either, but I don't know what he is thinking by now.
Even so, its looking like a long shot for regime change, and how to set up a successful transformational government is a crazy challenge in the ME, a region of doom for great powers, imo.

" And maybe someone will tell them that most Americans want this war to end, not wipe them out".

I think that's highly unlikely.

The Iranian government (expert at PR) leverages Trump's escalatory statements through state television (IRIB) and government-aligned media outlets for several key reasons-

Justifying State Security Crackdowns.

Framing the US as an Unreliable Diplomatic Partner.

Rallying National Unity Against an External Threat.

When Trump issues direct military threats, such as vowing to take out Iran's infrastructure or stating that "a whole civilization will die tonight," Iranian media broadcasts these exact words to stoke nationalist sentiment. The state utilizes the threats to frame the regime as the only entity capable of defending the Iranian homeland from complete destruction.

President Trump's public statements have almost certainly made any potential uprising more difficult.
For many Iranians, Trump is the unpalatable face of America.

As we are now thinking about targeting civilian infrastructure, I agree. Trump does not seem to see the Iranian people as an asset for regime change. And who will rebuild all of it? What kind of long range goals are there? Do they make any sense, given the nature of the ME?

Back to reality … GENs Kean, Kellog, Ret. plus recently interviewed said … again … the US has to destroy Iran's ability to fire drones & missiles. Attrite IRGC, Basji, the remaining islamists in their theocracy, C3I, etc.

The POTUS is threatening to take out Iran's, bridges, rail, etc. and other "civilian" infrastructure as those targets are not just used by the population but Iran's military. That is legal according to a number of agreements.

Again those GENs, etc. opinions pretty much "trumps" the "armchair warriors" here, in the media, etc.

The end game is clear – destroy Iran's nuclear quest, stop them interfering with the Straits/Persian Gulf, firing at neighboring counties, supporting islamic terrorism and slaughtering their own people.

What is so hard to understand …

If you are upset now … again if they nuke Israel … you will be very, very upset …

One of the best ways to obtain an OBJ is to eliminate all the resistance at that location.

The Iranian government (expert at PR)

Why are they "expert at PR" within in Iran when they are a totalitarian theocracy who controls all media and "journalism," and in the West they simply feed into the predisposed nihilistic self-hatred and reflexive anti-Americanism of the Left?

The Promise of a Separate Peace with Iran

"After no fewer than 38 false starts, the Trump administration has secured a provisional agreement with the Iranian government. Negotiations concerning the sensitive Iranian nuclear issue are set to proceed during a 60-day period. However, the success of the negotiations depends heavily on the integrity of the ceasefire itself, one to which both Hezbollah and Israel are subject. Given Israeli intransigence concerning its military adventures in Lebanon the current ceasefire is incredibly fragile. Accordingly, American support for the Israeli military presents a hurdle to peace, one which American policymakers would be wise to use as leverage.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that Israeli Prime Minister Benajamin Netanyahu and Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Leiter have both publicly admitted that the Israeli Ground Forces will not leave Southern Lebanon. Unsurprisingly, Israeli forces have continued to strike targets in the country. Unwilling to abide by the ceasefire, the Israeli government is now critically undermining American efforts toward peace.

There has been a remarkable unwillingness among Israeli leaders to recognize the failure of Operation Epic Fury. After over 100 days, Iranian support for its proxies has not ended. Iranian regime change has not materialized. The Iranian uranium stockpile has not been eliminated. Despite its public pronouncements, there has been an implicit acknowledgement of these facts in Washington. To salvage the project, the Trump administration has wisely streamlined its priorities to focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and dealing with the nuclear question later. Even in this more modest effort, American negotiators still face serious hurdles. Given the Israeli dependence on American materiel, the occupation of Lebanon is an enduring threat to peace between the United States and Iran…"

link

Iran Is Winning the Narrative War — and the Window To Stop It Is Closing

"The United States and its allies are approaching a moment of profound strategic danger in the Middle East, one that has been building slowly, quietly, and deliberately for decades. Iran has learned to shape events not only through military action but through narrative control—framing itself as the victim, the defender, the regional stabilizer, and the champion of resistance against Western interference. This narrative is false, but it is effective. It has allowed Iran to consolidate gains, rebuild capabilities, deepen alliances with Russia and China, and expand its influence across the Middle East and beyond. It has emboldened radical Islamists who see Iran's defiance as a model, and it has unsettled moderate Muslims who fear that the region is once again being dragged into a conflict shaped by external powers rather than internal aspirations. The danger now is not simply that Iran is advancing its nuclear program, rebuilding its military, or expanding its regional influence. The danger is that Iran is shaping the story of this conflict—and the world is beginning to believe it.

Iran's mastery of narrative control is not accidental. It is the product of a long-term strategy that recognizes the vulnerabilities of Western democracies. Iran understands that the United States is constrained by political cycles, partisan division, and public fatigue. It understands that Europe is divided, risk-averse, and hesitant to embrace decisive action. It understands that Russia and China are eager to exploit Western hesitation. And it understands that controlling the narrative allows it to operate in the shadows, advancing its objectives while the world debates, delays, and hopes for diplomatic breakthroughs that Iran has no intention of honoring. The result is a widening gap between Iranian capability and Western political will—a gap that is becoming increasingly difficult to close.

Iran has used this gap to rebuild its military capabilities even as Western leaders claim that its forces have been degraded. It is true that Iran's larger navy and air force have suffered grave damage. But Iran has two navies, and the smaller, more agile one remains intact. Its fast boats, mobile missile launchers, and dispersed rocket systems are still operational. Its missile arsenal, including long-range, medium-range, and precision-guided systems, remains a clear and present danger. Its drone capabilities continue to expand. And its ability to saturate the battlespace with rockets, drones, and unconventional weapons has not been eliminated. Iran is wounded, but it is not incapacitated. It is damaged, but it is not defeated. And it is using the perception of weakness to delay, rebuild capability, and prepare for the next phase of conflict…"

link

Armand

SB +1

It is easy to find information supporting one side or another. How true is the one below? Well this is via Goggle AI. Google isn't exactly a positive source for the administration. 😏

Also AI accesses a huge amount of online sources either directly or via sources like "Lexus Nexus". Many more than one web link. This particular one sited approximately 8 sources.

The internal dissension within Iran has reached unprecedented, critical levels, driven by a combination of a leaked presidency report detailing record public anger, violent civil unrest, and deep cracks within the regime's political leadership. [1, 2, 3]

Record Public Anger and Leaked Resistance
* Leaked Presidency Data: A confidential report by Iran's presidency leaked this week reveals the highest level of public anger ever recorded in any country. The internal document explicitly finds that nine out of ten Iranians want immediate change. [1]
* Underground Sabotage Operations: Coordinated opposition networks, known as PMOI Resistance Units, have launched a nationwide arson and sabotage campaign. Across major cities, including Mashhad, Isfahan, and Tehran, cells are systematically torching billboards and state banners of newly installed Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and former leader Ali Khamenei. [1, 2]
* Prison Uprisings: Inside the notorious Evin Prison, political women prisoners launched a fierce physical resistance against guards after authorities attempted to forcibly mix political protesters with general-crime convicts to dilute the opposition movement. [1]

Fierce Regime Fracturing and Media Gags
* Blaming the President: Following the recent collapse of a brief Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the West, political factions have aggressively splintered. High-ranking hardliners are positioning President Masoud Pezeshkian to be the exclusive scapegoat for the failed diplomatic efforts, sparking open public conflict between his office and the hardline legislature. [1, 2, 3]
* Unsanctioned Nuclear Talks: Fractures in command were exposed when parliament officials revealed that Iranian negotiators discussed nuclear policy in Islamabad without the Supreme Leader's explicit authorization, showing a severe breakdown in state cohesion. [1]
* Emergency Media Blackouts: Desperate to hide these internal rifts, Iran's Press Supervisory Board issued an emergency directive ordering all domestic media to strictly avoid publishing narrative accounts of internal disputes, factional differences, or any content highlighting social divisions. [1]

A Society Living in "Limbo"
* Psychological Burnout: Domestic surveys show that over 60% of the population experiences extreme hopelessness. Decades of high inflation and severe state crackdowns—superimposed on a jarring, daily oscillation between total war and temporary ceasefires—have pushed public tolerance past its breaking point. [1]
* Mass Desires to Flee: The ongoing internal instability has caused an abrupt spike in brain drain, with nearly one-third of the country's population now expressing a desire to emigrate, a number that drastically rises among highly educated Iranian youths.

Of course it's not a war crime to attack bridges and railroads used by the military. But, as I have mentioned before, taking out the power grid and closing the water desalination plants is too fundamental to civilian life to avoid such a designation, in my opinion.

IMO there has long been a difference between the expertise of former military commanders and that of statesmen, who seem to be in short supply currently. A number of men have accomplished both, but the things that make competent military commanders do not always equate to the global vision of statesmen, good and bad. Winning is not just about warriors, although they are critical components. I always defer to tactical assessments and battlefield strategy of military men. But the big picture is about how global interactions evolve into great power alignment and realignment. I am not going to ask a guy who opposes women's military promotions and says they need testosterone level exams what he thinks about global relationships among first rank rivals and expect a nuanced answer. Or even a useful one. But that is my opinion as someone qualified to be a routine civilian who reads certain types of history.

Threatening to wipe out a civilization in an angry tough guy tone is not something American leaders have publicly done in the past. We are accustomed to not taking this talk seriously these days, but our enemies appreciate these motivational gifts to give their own populations a lift. In this era, as we see the motivational power of hatred on display in various arenas, great leaders can go the other way, but they are not much in evidence around the globe, if at all. My opinion of course.

It's not that unusual Tort

Western Allied Leaders and Total Destruction Rhetoric
Western Allied leaders during World War I and World War II frequently used absolute language demanding the total destruction, crushing, or erasing of their enemies. While distinct from the systemic genocide practiced by totalitarian regimes, Western leaders adopted a doctrine of "total war" and unconditional surrender that justified the complete physical and political dismantling of the opposing nations.[1]

World War II Leaders

Winston Churchill (United Kingdom): Churchill explicitly and repeatedly advocated for the total annihilation of the Nazi regime and the physical destruction of German cities. In his 1940 "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" speech, he defined his policy as waging war with all might to achieve "victory at all costs." He later championed the strategic bombing campaign with the explicit goal of ruining German industrial and civilian centers, famously stating that the Allies would make Germany "a desert" if necessary to crush their war machine. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Franklin D. Roosevelt (United States): Roosevelt institutionalized the concept of complete destruction by introducing the policy of "unconditional surrender" at the 1943 Casablanca Conference. This policy deliberately barred any conditional peace treaties, demanding the total eradication of the German, Japanese, and Italian political and military structures. Roosevelt argued that the philosophies of these enemy nations had to be completely stamped out and destroyed to ensure future global peace. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Harry S. Truman (United States): Upon taking office and facing the invasion of the Japanese mainland, Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration, warning Japan of "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender unconditionally. Following the deployment of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Truman's rhetoric reinforced this absolute stance, promising a "rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth" to completely wipe out Japan's capacity to wage war. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Arthur "Bomber" Harris (United Kingdom): While a military commander rather than a head of state, Air Chief Marshal Harris executed Western political directives through the doctrine of "area bombing." He famously declared, "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them… They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." His explicit strategy was the total destruction of German cities like Dresden and Hamburg to break the nation's will. [1, 2, 3]

World War I Leaders

David Lloyd George (United Kingdom): During the latter half of World War I, British Prime Minister Lloyd George rejected any notions of a negotiated peace, advocating instead for a "knock-out blow." His wartime rhetoric focused on the total destruction of Prussian militarism. He insisted that the war must continue until the German military apparatus was completely smashed, a stance that heavily influenced the severe, punitive terms later written into the Treaty of Versailles. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Georges Clemenceau (France): Known as "The Tiger," the French Prime Minister was driven by a singular focus: the total political and economic crippling of the German Empire. Facing the devastation of northern France, Clemenceau's wartime rhetoric and subsequent peace negotiations demanded the complete dismantling of Germany's military capacity, famously insisting that "there are 20 million Germans too many" to emphasize his desire to fundamentally diminish the enemy nation.

I won't go into the later U.S. Civil War, but here are two CW generals after the war

General William Tecumseh Sherman (Commanding General of the U.S. Army): Sherman, who oversaw the Indian Wars under Grant, viewed Native Americans as an obstacle to American progress. He openly advocated for the complete destruction of their way of life, famously writing to General Philip Sheridan that the U.S. Army must act with "vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women, and children." He also orchestrated the systemic slaughter of the American bison, stating that "destroying the buffalo meant destroying Native Americans" by eliminating their "commissary".

General Philip Sheridan (Commander of the Military Division of the Missouri): Tasked by the administration with subduing the Plains Indians, Sheridan applied the same total-war, scorched-earth tactics he used in the Civil War. He advocated for attacking villages during the winter to destroy their shelter, food supplies, and livestock, aiming for total submission. He is also famously (and controversially) credited with the infamous phrase, "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead"

These are not unique. We can find them all throughout history

Our current enemy in Iran has been advocating our and Israel's total annihilation since around 1979.

Why should we A) not believe they mean it? B) be better then they are?

Can you fight a war with one hand tied behind your back? How would ww2 have ended if the allies had.

We have done it elsewhere since, how has it worked?

Sherman and Sheridan, great soldiers, not statesmen…. Ike was both, Washington ultimately also. Trump is very specific, his tone often rancorous. It plays very well for our enemies as a motivating factor. Churchill speaks in generalities. He is resolute, not angry. He is in control, articulates his message clearly but without the boasting.

I have been clear. I give POTUS credit for really trying to solve the ME.But it's beyond him, IMO, as it has been for his predecessors.

The point. Many leaders have used the same rhetoric. Some actually did it.

No one can stop the president's mouth. Be nice if he would. But he won't.

Churchill was disliked by many. The running battles between he and Mrs Astor just the most humorous.

The Masquerade Ball: When Churchill asked her what disguise he should wear to a party, Astor replied, "Why don't you come sober, Prime Minister?"The Bathroom Retort: When Churchill complained that having a woman in Parliament was like having one "intrude on him in the bathroom," she retorted, "You're not handsome enough to have such fears".The Poison Tea: In one heated argument, she told him, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."

From Iran International

"Petition tells Iran hardliners: Fight the US war yourselves"

Nearly 100,000 people signed a petition within a day urging members of Iran's ultraconservative Paydari Front to visit the southern war zone, reflecting anger at hardliners who oppose talks with Washington while remaining far from the fighting.
The petition, hosted on the Iranian platform Karzar, calls on prominent Paydari figures, including lawmakers Hamid Rasaei and Amirhossein Sabeti, to travel to the southern cities of Sirik and Bandar Abbas, where residents have faced repeated attacks during the conflict.
Its authors said such a visit would help the politicians "better understand the realities on the ground" and avoid decisions that could endanger civilians.
Challenge to hardline rhetoric
The petition says residents of southern Iran have lived under "direct and around-the-clock threats" while military personnel and civilians alike face fears of further attacks and damage to critical infrastructure.
It argues that politicians who have called for a wartime posture should experience those conditions themselves, saying a field visit could lead to "more realistic decision-making" and greater solidarity with local communities.
The Paydari Front is one of Iran's most hardline political factions and has been among the strongest opponents of negotiations with the United States. Its lawmakers have repeatedly criticized President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi over diplomacy with Washington.
Earlier this week, parliament removed two of the bloc's most outspoken critics of negotiations from senior positions on the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, reflecting growing tensions within Iran's conservative establishment over the handling of the conflict.

Southern anger
The petition has coincided with growing criticism on Persian-language social media over the burden borne by southern Iran, where much of the fighting has been concentrated.
In a video posted on Instagram, a comedian and influencer from southern Iran accused officials of downplaying attacks on the region. He said that when Tehran and other parts of the country came under attack, authorities described them as missile and drone strikes, but now that the south was bearing the brunt of the fighting, incoming rockets were being referred to simply as "projectiles."
"They've sanitized the language," he said. "It's as if a four- or five-year-old neighbor's child has thrown a stone at someone." He added: "You may not have the courage to call it what it is, but at least have some humanity. Don't treat southerners differently from everyone else."
Journalist Azadeh Mokhtari wrote on X that southern Iran was "the beating heart of Iran's economy," saying its ports were vital to imports, cargo handling and supplying much of the country.

Another X user argued that the Islamic Republic had turned large parts of the southern coastline into military zones and missile sites while residents continued to struggle with poverty despite the region's strategic importance and natural wealth.
A third wrote that Iranians should not pretend there was no war simply because the attacks were concentrated in the south. "Southern Iran is an inseparable part of this country," the post said. "Its pain is the pain of all Iran."
Unity message meets political divisions
The petition emerged as Iran's Press Supervisory Board instructed media outletsnot to highlight political or factional disputes, urging them instead to avoid content it said could harm national cohesion or amplify social divisions.
The guidance told outlets to avoid "highlighting political and factional differences," "reproducing internal disputes" and publishing material that could undermine public unity.
Iran ranks among the world's lowest countries for press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders, which says state repression continues to weigh heavily on independent journalism.

I think Trump is the first to threaten his allies before threatening his enemy.

I hope the signers don't face retribution….There are 90 million people in Iran, need more people to sign…and some leaders! And of course a covert undercover allied force with a battle plan to destabilize the regime.

I hate to say it, time to let go of the purges at the DOD. Now that there is no career path for various groups in the military and the shooting war is starting to look even more uncertain, let's see what happens to recruiting. But, the real point is priorities. Try to convene the Israelis, the Brits, European special forces, intelligence aka CIA, Mossad, MI6 type people to come up with a new covert plan to make life miserable for the regime.

My civilian-who-reads opinion…..DOD needs to step up on the leadership end and not let POTUS run the war on his own. He might need a hand, and the smartest guys in the room to speak up. I keep thinking about Kelly, MacMaster, Mattis, Esper, etc. Their long service records disregarded, made to look like villains. Because they spoke up. But we need all the expertise we can get. The only loyalty that matters in wartime is to the United States, IMO. The new Director of Nat Intel, named Pulte, has begun the firings. I think he needs to find somebody with experience to steer him on his new job instead. You don't call the plumber when your car needs fixing.

I hope the signers don't face retribution….There are 90 million people in Iran, need more people to sign…and some leaders! And of course a covert undercover allies force with a battle plan to destabilize the regime.

I think Trump is the first to threaten his allies before threatening his enemy.

LOL, if you call browbeating someone into taking the right course of action "threatening." Seriously, Buddy, read a history book. Eisenhower warned the Europeans the "American well can run dry." JFK, Nixon, Bush, and Obama all bitched about freeloading NATO allies while staring down the Soviets/Russia. It's called "burden-sharing," not a personality disorder. Trump just said it louder until the reacted. Same song, different decade, different volume level.

At the moment, the US seems to have achieved few of its goals, even if those are both hard to uncover and constantly shifting. Aside from sinking their navy, they seem to have plenty of drones to hit our ME assets with.

Air power alone does not seem to be producing the desired political outcome. Not a surprise really, few military strategists believed air power alone could achieve success against a country like Iran. indeed, there is little evidence that the current strategy is bringing the conflict materially closer to resolution.

Instead, the campaign looks like it is heading towards incremental escalation, reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson's approach in Vietnam with each additional round of strikes undertaken in the hope that one more increment of force will result in victory.

There is also a growing perception that domestic political considerations are shaping the conduct of the war. Thus rather than ending the conflict, the administration increasingly appears focused on sustaining support among its political base; even if that means continuing operations without a clear end state.

Learning from Ukraine…

US is launching naval drones at Iran's port city of Bandar Abbas

link

The Fatwa Against Trump and Netanyahu

link

Armand

Iran hardliners blamed as cost of US strikes mounts

Behrouz Turani
Iran International

Moderate voices in Iran are sharpening their criticism of hardline calls for continued confrontation with the United States, arguing that diplomacy has become a patriotic necessity as renewed war exacts mounting economic and human costs.
The debate has intensified since Iran targeted a vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last week, prompting a renewed US military campaign that has included days of strikes on ports, bridges, airports and military facilities across Iran's southern provinces.
Even as US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf have continued to defend diplomacy backed by military preparedness, the fighting has persisted and the prospect of a wider conflict has grown.
The criticism has been directed in part at ultrahardline figures such as Qom Seminary Chancellor Alireza Arafi, who has called for further war against the United States and an end to negotiations.
Two recent commentaries—one by former lawmaker and former National Security Committee chairman Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the other by political analyst Abdolrahman Fathollahi—reflect the growing push to hold hardliners accountable for the costs of confrontation.
While one focuses on political responsibility for failed diplomacy, the other highlights the burden borne by communities on Iran's southern frontier.
‘Defeating diplomacy'
Writing in the moderate daily Toseh Irani, Falahatpisheh accused hardline factions of using what he called a distorted interpretation of religion to obstruct diplomatic opportunities.
"I believe part of these two major wars against Iran was the result of this very definition of religious beliefs by extremists, who are now turning to distorting religion to defeat diplomacy," he wrote.
He argued that the same factions had repeatedly promised better outcomes while blocking agreements that could have reduced tensions.
"They are the exact same people who blocked two good agreements during the major periods of 2021 and 2022, claiming they would forge a better deal," he wrote. "But in practice, not only was no agreement achieved, but two major wars were imposed on Iran."
Falahatpisheh called for the prosecution of those he said had turned diplomatic opportunities into military conflict.
‘Patriotism from a safe distance'
A second commentary, published Thursday in Shargh, shifted the focus from political responsibility to the human cost of confrontation.
Under the title The Country's Future and the Triangle of Extremism, Costs, and Responsibility, Fathollahi warned about the toll of intensifying US airstrikes on Iran's southern coastal provinces.
He pointed to public campaigns calling for outspoken opponents of negotiations to be sent to the front lines, accusing them of practising what he described as "patriotism from a safe distance."
"One certainly cannot beat the drums of war from the safe margins of the capital behind podiums, while dumping the costs of those decisions onto the people living in the front lines," Fathollahi wrote, highlighting the plight of communities bearing the brunt of the fighting over the Strait of Hormuz.
The comments come after a week of US strikes on infrastructure across Iran's Persian Gulf provinces, where dozens have been killed or injured and many more affected by transport disruption, electricity blackouts and water shortages during the height of summer.
For Fathollahi, the question is no longer simply one of military strategy but whether Iran's leaders are willing to change course before the costs grow even higher.
"Rethinking certain political approaches and utilizing all expert and diplomatic capacities is not a choice," he concluded, "but a necessity to safeguard national interests and reduce the costs imposed on society."

OVI +1

SB +1

I think Trump is the first to threaten his allies before threatening his enemy.

Because the allies were dragging the . After downsizing their military significantly and do what looked like planning on the US to come to their aid again. Sometimes that is what it takes to get things done.

At the moment, the US seems to have achieved few of its goals,

Well it depends how you want to look at it.

There is little possibility of Iran digging out their buried nuke materials. It would take a major effort to even start to try.

No naval assets. Few air assets. Most of their leadership has been removed from the board.

Their ability to do more than fire a few missiles or drones as ships in the Strait or at US and others in the region is very limited. And have had limited effect. They have limited offensive capabilities.

Not all their goals have been achieved but a pretty good list so far …

Unless one believes the rantings of some in Congress, the media, etc.

Air power alone does not seem to be producing the desired political outcome. Not a surprise really, few military strategists believed air power alone could achieve success against a country like Iran. indeed, there is little evidence that the current strategy is bringing the conflict materially closer to resolution.

That been the standard and it holds a lot of truth. Air power alone can't defeat an enemy. But like many times in history past concepts and beliefs have to be modified. To suit the new tech involved, the terrain and situation, etc.

The US has done all it could to get Iran to stop their aggression, threats, etc. At this point continuing surgical strikes on the standard target list. Plus start going after some infrastructure, increasing strikes on not just road and rail nets, bridges, etc. Plus keep attriting IRGC, Basji leaders, etc.

The war may not be going as fast as some would like … and regardless of the POTUS's bluster. The war is not over … yet.

Instead, the campaign looks like it is heading towards incremental escalation, reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson's approach in Vietnam with each additional round of strikes undertaken in the hope that one more increment of force will result in victory.

We learned many lessons from that war. I don't think we will make the same mistakes …

There is also a growing perception that domestic political considerations are shaping the conduct of the war. Thus rather than ending the conflict, the administration increasingly appears focused on sustaining support among its political base; even if that means continuing operations without a clear end state.

Possibly … but we cannot let Iran threaten the Straits. Hold 20% of the world's oil hostage. Again IMO the victory conditions are clear and obtainable. But the war is not over with … yet …

Iran International

Tehran demands media limit strike damage coverage as US widens war
5 hours ago

confidential directive from Iran's Supreme National Security Council, obtained by Iran International on Friday, instructed media publishers and editors to limit reporting on damage to civilian infrastructure as the United States reportedly prepares to widen the Iran war.
…

It told media outlets covering attacks on civilian facilities and infrastructure to "refrain from publishing vital information," avoid creating "fear and alarm among the public," and withhold details about the extent of destruction or its impact on the delivery of public services.

The council said such information could be used "by the enemy to assess the effectiveness of its attacks." It instructed media outlets to obtain information through the most senior provincial official responsible for any institution or facility that had been hit.

The directive also ordered media outlets to describe disruptions to public services using phrases such as "the issue is under review and being resolved," rather than report the extent of the damage or provide specific details about its effect on services.


link

Containing Iran

link

Armand

OVI +1 … again …

Rat leaving a sinking ship?
Cardboard cutout burn up?
Someone threw a bucket of water on him and he melted the rest of the way?

1 hour ago
Mojtaba Khamenei flees Iran as mystery over whereabouts grows: report

Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is no longer in Iran, according to an Israeli security source cited by Saudi news outlet Al-Hadath, The Times of Israel reported on Sunday.

The report comes as questions continue to swirl over Khamenei's whereabouts.
He has not appeared publicly since being named supreme leader following the Feb. 28 U.S.-Israeli strike that killed his father.
* The source also said Khamenei's messages were written by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG) chief Ahmad Vahidi or other members.

On Sunday, the Iranian leader referred to the U.S. as "the Great Satan" in his latest post on X and said the United States has learned it can no longer operate freely or dominate the Middle East.

"The Great Satan — the criminal U.S. — has now realized that the continuation of its trouble-free, domineering presence in the region is nothing but a naive fantasy," he said.

OVI +1 again + !

The US Navy's State of the Straits

link

Armand

@Tango

Interesting article that the Hormuz affair is showing China that denying passage through a strait is much easier than forcing passage through one.

The Iranian military situation may have settled into a coercive stalemate: the U.S. can keep striking Iran, while Iran can keep firing missiles, causing shipping disruption and regional attacks, but neither side has an easy route to decisive victory.

That makes "something bigger than airstrikes" less likely unless Washington is prepared to attack the coastal infrastructure that sustains Iran's control of the strait. And doing that comprehensively could require exactly the sort of ground operation both sides currently appear to be avoiding.

the U.S. can keep striking Iran, while Iran can keep firing missiles,

Iran will continue to lose many more assets vs. the USA … Fortunately, US loses are very small. And Iran's ability to sustain their limited attacks is unlikely. As long as the regime can stay alive they will believe they are winning. All they are doing is buy time. Delaying the inevitable. As the US and IDF can't leave a severely wounded Iran. They have to destroy it …

"something bigger than airstrikes" less likely unless Washington is prepared to attack the coastal infrastructure that sustains Iran's control of the strait.

The US can successfully secure Kharg and may be one or two other islands. A raid(s) to destroy Iran's assets. Heavily prepped and supported by air assets. E.g. Kharg could be the linchpin. And strikes along the coast, etc. will continue … Until they no longer are threat. Which is basically what GENs Ret. Kean and Kellog are saying.

And doing that comprehensively could require exactly the sort of ground operation both sides currently appear to be avoiding.

Any further ground ops beside the destruction if 1 or 2 critical islands. Would not be required and only cause US unneeded loses. As has been said by the ret. senior officers I mentioned and many others. Iran is far too big, has too much rough terrain, e.g. mountains, cities, etc. for even the entire US Military to attempt such task. Which would make no sense.

To invade the Iran mainland is doing something they want the US to do. As like in SE Asia and A'stan. All they have to do is keep inflicting more losses on the US. And sooner than later with the backing of the 5th Columnist is Congress, the media, the Left, etc. the US will leave. And then with help from the Chicoms they will rebuild and restart their quest for nukes, interdicting the strait, supporting terrorism, etc. It may take time. But like many other US leaders, this POTUS will not kick the can down the road.

Removal of this fanatical islamist cult will change the region and in many places in the world for the very much better. The POTUS can't get reelected … he knows that. But historically this will literally be a very significant world event. Change the whole paradigm of Iran's militant islamic threat. That would be a true legacy of success. Unlike the previous POTUS and some others.

As after the islands in the strait. There really is nothing on the ground to seize and hold. Just mission is just to destroy more of Iran's dwindling assets. Including missile and drone launcher locations, any production/supply capabilities plus the IRGC/Basji and what is left of their leadership. And yes that includes the new Ayatollah, his retinue and any others remaining in some sort of leadership position.

The US is avoiding our losses as a matter of SOP. Iran knows they have to try to stay alive. And hope to wait the US out. Plus they know, they can't hold on against US determination and most importantly firepower.

But again as GEN Clarke said, this will take time to get this done.

And again Iran cannot be allowed be a threat … ever again.

I remember before the Iraq invasion, all the doom and gloom "experts" and their predictions of how hard it would be to defeat the Iraqi army. How Iraq had the, what was it? 5th largest army…. Top 10 anyway. Battle tested… etc.

Take Kharg island and hold it for 2 months, maybe less and their economy will be a catastrophe. We just destroy it, same result.

The other side:

Iran economists say war is turning malaise into crisis

Behrouz Turani
Iran International
2 hours ago

Iran's leading economists warned Monday that renewed conflict with the United States risks pushing the country's long-festering economic problems into a more dangerous phase, arguing that inflation is becoming increasingly difficult to contain.
The unusually candid warnings came at a two-day economic conference in Tehran that brought together senior economists, policymakers and business leaders after being postponed three times because of regional instability and wartime conditions.
Speakers said the latest escalation with Washington had transformed discussions from long-term reform into managing an economy under renewed military pressure.
Former presidential adviser Masoud Nili delivered one of the starkest assessments, warning that Iran's economy was moving from a chronic but manageable malaise into an active crisis.
Years of structural mismanagement, he said, were now visibly breaking open, while inflation had entered a "more slippery phase" in which subsidies and social safety nets were no longer sufficient to protect household welfare.
Media coverage reflected the divide between government officials seeking to reassure the public and independent economists warning that structural weaknesses were becoming harder to ignore.
Economic daily Donya-ye-Eghtesad listed chronic inflation, weak and unstable growth, persistent budget deficits, foreign-exchange volatility, dual exchange rates, pension-fund insolvency, foreign-policy pressures and rising geopolitical risks among the country's most urgent challenges.
Economist Mehrdad Sepahvand, one of the conference organizers, said the event had been delayed three times because of the regional crisis.
Investment gap
Former Central Bank Governor Hossein Abdoh Tabrizi argued that banking reform was essential, saying financial institutions must become "efficient allocators of capital rather than money-printing engines."
Although public confidence in the banking system had held up during recent regional conflict, he said, deeper reforms were needed to channel savings into productive investment.
Economist Mohammad-Mehdi Behkish said rebuilding damaged infrastructure, restoring economic growth and modernizing industry would require about $500 USD billion in investment.
Domestic resources alone were nowhere near sufficient, he argued, making greater foreign engagement and integration into the global economy indispensable.
Alireza Bakhtiari, director of the Donya-ye-Eghtesad Media Group, said policymakers remained trapped between what he described as a "survival paradigm" and a "growth paradigm," arguing that many of Iran's domestic economic constraints could not be resolved without major foreign-policy decisions.
Government response
Government-linked outlets focused instead on Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati, who acknowledged the severity of the economic situation while urging against panic.
Hemmati cited Iranian and international data showing a 47 percent decline in real per-capita income, saying the purchasing power of the average Iranian had fallen to levels last seen in the late 1990s.
Calling for "realism without doom-mongering," he argued that neither denial nor exaggeration would improve the economy.
"Price stability alone doesn't create goods," he said. "Only investment and productivity can sustainably restore Iranians' purchasing power."
Inflation pressures
Independent economists painted an even darker picture.
Hossein Tavakolian warned that inflation was entering a more dangerous phase.
Monthly inflation, once around 3 percent and equivalent to roughly 40 percent annually, was now periodically reaching 10 percent, he said, with nearly every major consumer category entering what he described as "red zones."
Academic economist Teymour Rahmani argued that inflation in Iran was fundamentally a political and fiscal problem rather than simply a monetary one.
Although direct government borrowing from the central bank had been curtailed, he said, fiscal pressures had merely shifted onto commercial banks, postponing rather than solving the country's inflation problem.

<\q>

I'm against any ceasefire options.

AXIOs

4 hours ago -

World
Iran mediators push new ceasefire as Trump eyes all-out war

President Trump is nearing a decisive fork in the Iran war, with U.S. and Israeli officials envisioning only two viable endgames:
* Option 1: Pursue a new 10-day ceasefire aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
* Option 2: Launch a massive joint military campaign with Israel to force Tehran's capitulation.
Why it matters: Trump hasn't made a decision yet. Butofficials believe the next few days will determine which path prevails — with little room left for the grinding, open-ended conflict now paralyzing the Gulf.

Driving the news: Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan and other regional mediators have presented the U.S. and Iran with a proposal for a 10-day ceasefire, two regional sources with direct knowledge of the effort told Axios.
* The Trump administration is exploring the proposal and has urged Israel to avoid steps that could close the diplomatic window, U.S. officials said.
* But Washington is simultaneously preparing for the talks to fail. The U.S. military has sent dozens of fighter jets and refueling aircraft to the region in recent days, assembling the forces needed for a major escalation.
* Israeli sources said the IDF is on high alert and preparing for a possible expansion of the war into a full-scale, coordinated campaign within days.
The big picture: Ten straight nights of U.S. bombing have failed to break Iran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz, dragging Trump deeper into a war he has repeatedly declared won.
* At least three U.S. service members have been killed in the renewed fighting. Trump said Monday he had ordered the Pentagon to make Iran pay "many times over" for every American death.
* Oil briefly broke $90 USD a barrel this weekend as Iran widened its strikes on commercial ships and Gulf infrastructure. Gas prices are rising again, compounding the domestic backlash to an already unpopular war.
Zoom in: Regional mediators are once again racing to interrupt a cycle of retaliation that grows deadlier, costlier and harder to contain with each new strike.
* The new ceasefire proposal would halt the fighting, reopen both shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz, and give Washington and Tehran room to salvage their collapsing memorandum of understanding (MOU).
* "We told the U.S. and Iran that we propose a cooling-off period," one of the regional sources said.
State of play: Neither Trump nor Iran has accepted the proposal, and both sides appear determined to improve their leverage through further strikes before committing to a ceasefire.
* In the meantime, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have declared a maritime blockade on Saudi ports, opening another front against the Gulf's energy infrastructure and shipping lanes.
* Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warnedthat Israel will answer any Iranian attack with massive strikes, raising the risk of a wider war stretching from the Gulf to the Red Sea and Israel.
Behind the scenes: Regional sources said mediators are trying to build on a proposal discussed by Oman, Iran and Qatar in Muscat, Oman, on July 11, when the U.S. demanded Tehran publicly commit to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.
* Those talks ended without an agreement, and Iran attacked commercial ships in the strait shortly afterward — triggering the U.S. bombing campaign that has continued every night since.
* The proposal would fully reopen both Hormuz shipping lanes: the southern route through Omani waters, free of Iranian attacks, and the northern route through Iranian waters, free of the U.S. blockade.
During the 10-day ceasefire, the U.S. and Iran would negotiate a longer-term arrangement governing passage through the strait.
* One option would allow Iran to collect "reasonable service fees" for maritime security, environmental protection and other services, according to one regional source.
* The source pointed to the Strait of Malacca — where Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore charge vessels for specific services rather than a blanket transit fee — as a possible model.
* Another idea would direct the fees into a joint fund administered with the involvement of the International Maritime Organization.
Officials involved in the mediation include Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Qatari envoy Ali Al-Thawadi, Pakistani army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi.
The intrigue: One regional source said the ceasefire effort was gaining momentum Saturday, before an Iranian missile strike in Jordan killed at least two U.S. service members and prompted Washington to pull back.
* A senior U.S. official confirmed that talks are continuing but said Trump has yet to finish retaliating.
* "The president is focused on making Iran pay for its violations of the MOU and its continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz," the official told Axios.
* "In addition, the president will make Iran pay for the recent deaths of U.S. soldiers. These devastating blows will continue until the president deems otherwise."
What they're saying: Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei confirmed Monday that mediators were working to prevent further escalation.
* "The proposals conveyed through the mediators have been received by us, but at this stage I prefer not to discuss their details," Baghaei said at an Iranian press briefing.
* He added that Iran's armed forces would continue to "respond with strength and crush the source of U.S. aggression."
What to watch: It's unclear whether Trump has been fully briefed on the ceasefire framework — or whether he would accept another temporary ceasefire without a clear path toward a lasting settlement.
* The president has voiced deep frustration with Tehran since the ceasefire collapsed, calling Iran's leaders "sick people" and dismissing further negotiations as a "waste of time."
* One regional source said the White House may continue bombing Iran for several more days to avenge the killing of the U.S. service members in Jordan before seriously considering the proposal.
The bottom line: "We are trying to work out a sustainable solution," one regional source said. "The Iranians can't dictate the terms, but they also can't be ignored."

<\q>

Iran is reported to be moving some nuclear material underground. They know they are not on the way to victory. Will they try to make some nukes again ? We know where they are going … a mountain near Tehran.

And I'm pretty sure they are getting support from the Chicoms to do all this as well.

Well I think they know they better work fast. As the US has many B-2s with GBU-57s. Plus many TLAMs, etc.

This an escalation, on both sides. Like a showdown at high noon in Dodge City. Or the Russians entering Berlin in '45.

This conflict is moving into the critical part of the match. It has to be done … And the US cannot be reactionary … Let the attrition of Iran's assets continue …

Finish it …

SupposedlyCentrifuges under Pickaxe mountain. But no dust.

Intelligence indicates Iran relocated thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges to tunnels deep inside Pickaxe Mountain (Mount Kolang). Buried 300 to 450 feet beneath solid rock, the secret bunker serves as a heavily fortified nuclear-assembly and storage site near the Natanz nuclear complex.

From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Oops! He forgot to mention shooting at US troops anywhere in the ME, or the world. If only someone could help him not post these things, like his casualty comparison post also (whatever THAT was about), and issue press releases that sound more, well, imposing and stateman-like. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Don't care how he posts them, just the final result.

Biden could have come out and slept in a wheel chair, if he had called off that fiasco of a withdrawal in Afghanistan.

Obama and Bush spoke like statesmen, but how many are unhappy with Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq?

According to many, they were surrounded by the most competent people in the world.

Militarily we seem to be functioning pretty well.

Being honest, how do you feel Iran's Army would perform against our troops?
They have no Air Force, no real Navy. Much of their central control is long gone. Units are functioning independently. Potentially soon, they will be unable to move troops from one area to the other with bridges and railroads gone. Supply to line troops would be nearly impossible with our control of the air.

Yes, drones and missiles. But they would not have control nor the ability to reestablish it. We take Kharg and they lose 80 or 90% of oil processing. They can't take it back.

If we would go that route, tell them any flight to or from Iran, go down immediately. No more then 2 or 3 day warning to all countries.

Rumor today they may have sent guard to the Houthis. That should never happen! Some pilot should be painting those plane silhouettes on the side of his fighter!

We will lose troops.

For a country whose military was wiped out months ago, they are somehow still active. Not that their army or navy were very competitive to begin with, but the descriptions of their destruction seemed very conclusive. And still we are taking casualties.

I think the tweets matter. They do not have the gravitas of a planned escalation of consequences as laid out by a true national policy. They sound more like extemporaneous pronouncements written overnight by one guy. Which they are. They are sometimes too over the top to be taken seriously. They may not be factual. Yes, it's a style thing. But I think it may affect the end results.

They have said their navy and Air Force were pretty much destroyed. Which is true. Their army/guard units .. they did not say wiped out.

Yes, we have taken casualties. It's a conflict in which we are still functioning offensively in. Casualties should be expected… probably more.

But it is not a withdrawal/abandonment costing casualties for absolutely nothing

The U.S. Department of Defense reported that approximately \(\$7.12 \text{ billion}\) in military equipment and aircraft transferred to the former Afghan government was left behind following the 2021 withdrawal. Out of the over \(\$145 \text{ billion}\) spent on reconstruction, tens of billions were lost to waste, fraud, and abandoned infrastructure like airbases.

How much of that equipment would come in handy today? 🤔

And that run by officials who were, according to the media, "competent".

I'll add:

all branches of the US military have successfully met or exceeded their active-duty recruitment goals for the year, hitting their numbers months ahead of the fiscal year deadline on September 30. [1, 2]
* U.S. Army: Achieved its active-duty goal by signing more than 61,500 future soldiers by late May, meeting the quota four months early.
*
* U.S. Air Force & U.S. Space Force: Surpassed their combined active-duty enlistment targets of over 33,000 airmen and Guardians in April.
*
* U.S. Marine Corps: Reached its exact target of 26,600 recruits early.
*
* U.S. Navy: Achieved its goal of 45,000 future sailors, following similar rapid success earlier in the year.[1, 2, 3, 4]
*
Overall, the combined services have achieved over 103% of their active-duty recruiting mission. Department of Defense officials credit this success to enhanced career incentives and modernized outreach efforts.

Also, the President met the plane of the returning dead today… with his eyes opened.

POTUS said "wiped out" back in March. In fact, he just said it again a couple of weeks ago.

That's great about recruiting. It has been climbing for a while. The DOD's remark about the reasons goes back to 2023 when they began to redesign the recruiting program. You may recall I kept citing the data from the original Army research back then. There was solid data that DEI had little to do with the declining enlistments. And yes some of it seemed pretty crazy. The whole pronoun thing has never really caught on. But it was not high on the list of things that turned off most recruits. The Army instead began to use different marketing tactics and got better pay and other incentives. But what if women and minorities start to think they have no chance for promotion, no career path? It's too early to judge the impact of the war on recruiting.

OVI +1

Supposedly Centrifuges under Pickaxe mountain. But no dust.

Yes, it is just centrifuges … And Yes the SecWar said they can take care of this. As with the other nuke sites before.

Don't care how he posts them, just the final result.

That is the bottom line … And he gets results … Whether some like him or not.

For a country whose military was wiped out months ago, they are somehow still active.

So were the German in Berlin and the IJFs on Iwo. It ain't over with yet …

That's great about recruiting.

Say what one wants. I think the X-Factor is new and much more competent aggressive dynamic leadership.

The lack of leadership in the last adminstration is matched by the lack of experience and ability in this one, IMO. Anyone here think Pulte is the best best qualified for his job during a war? What does his appointment say about leadership in the WH? Does home construction and mortgages some how pertain to assessing global intel and threat analysis ?

Legion we will not likely get on the same page here. I have no doubts about competent leadership in the military other than Hegseth, who despite his apparent fighting spirit has been in over his head at the wrong command level. Despite my clear lack of military background and high level expertise, I can't shake the feeling that we should be hearing more about shipbuilding capacity and ammo resupply than testosterone testing. Blaming the media only goes so far in explaining some of this.

I commend Trump for trying to rid the world of the terrorists running Iran. Stay off the tweets and hire better people, Then listen to them and don't just go with your gut. Running American policy through daily use of social media is not just a quirk, IMO. It's a mistake.

Iranian workers who have gone months without pay may have only two months of financial resilience left without government intervention, a labor representative warned on Thursday, as wage arrears mount following conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic.

"The country will certainly face significant unrest among workers by the end of the summer if the current trend continues," Akbar Shokat, executive secretary of the Workers' House in Qom province, told the ILNA news agency.

Legion we will not likely get on the same page here. I have no doubts about competent leadership in the military other than Hegseth, who despite his apparent fighting spirit has been in over his head at the wrong command level.

Yes you are correct … we don't agree … no matter …

Despite my clear lack of military background and high level expertise,

Well you are not the only one here. Regardless … I was just an 03 in the US Army Infantry, back in the '80s. Who served in 4 line Infantry Bns.

I think I understand the military, weapons, tactics, etc. based on that training, experience, etc. So my observations will be very different than most here.

Blaming the media only goes so far in explaining some of this.

Yes it does … you have to add some of those in Congress, some party members, the Left, woke progressives, the communists, islamists, etc. That are here right now in America.

But something we all have to understand … the media shapes the reality of many in the US. Many in those media push narratives and have agendas. That may not always be accurate. E.g. Cronkite and Tet '68 …

I commend Trump for trying to rid the world of the terrorists running Iran.

Yes he is the only POTUS who saw what the cold hard truth about Iran's islamists. As well as many other initiatives to repair the horrific damage done by the previous Admin, the other party, etc.

And as far as Hegseth … I get where he is coming from. Again based on my past.

Of course everybody is entitled to an opinion … valid, accurate or otherwise. Even a broken clock is right twice a day …

Our Generals Are Failing Us

"America's flag and general officers (FOGOs) are superb tacticians and technicians, but they are poor strategists and practitioners of the operational art. Iran was a good example. It was clearly President Trump's intent to use the war as a means to encourage the restive Iranian people to overthrow the regime. Instead of using a mix of information warfare and intimidation of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps — the real power brokers in Iran — our FOGOs chose to treat the whole thing as a targeting exercise concentrating mainly on pure military targets. The Israelis took out leadership individuals, but the real power was in the ability of IRGC units to disperse to their homes and only come out in force to suppress the large gatherings of dissidents intent on storming government buildings as happened in the 1979 revolution. Military

We should have gone after the IRGC, which is the real center of gravity of the regime. Using a combination of drone-delivered leaflets and radio broadcasts, we could have called for the people to occupy government buildings in key cities such as Tehran, Qom, and Bandar Arras. When IGRC units came out of hiding to disperse the crowds, drone-delivered precision-guided munitions could have targeted them, giving the revolutionaries confidence. This would have taken imagination and initiative that the U.S. military no longer shows. This is not post-war armchair hindsight. I suggested it in this publication shortly after the war began. (READ MORE: What Next After the Bombing Stops?)

As it turns out, the IRGC's power has been increased by the war. It is reportedly building new bases in Iraq already, and they will use the billions that they gained in the peace agreement to restore their influence with Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. We are admittedly poor at managing regime change in foreign countries, but we did not really care what happened as long as the IRGC was eliminated as a factor. The best case would be a democratic government; the worst would be a civil war. In any case, the Iranians would not be causing trouble in the region for a long time. Now, we have given the IRGC a new lease on life…"

link

Armand

For everyone like Andersen … their is another who says the opposite. He is just another "learned" high ranking officer. That has to be respected. But in this case many other high ranking officers see it differently …

Legion, did some digging on him. He too is a wargammer. So your analysis is correct. Not a front liner. He is a college teacher now.

Colonel Gary W. Anderson does not have direct, front-line infantry combat experience from his 29 years on active duty. His military career was defined by strategic intelligence, forward deployments, and high-level defense planning rather than leading tactical firefights.Nature of His Field ExperienceActive Duty Era (1971–2000): He served primarily during the interwar years between the end of the Vietnam War and the start of the Global War on Terrorism. His operational field time was spent on rapid-reaction naval contingencies and international peacekeeping missions (such as with the United Nations in Lebanon).Civilian Advising in Active War Zones: His closest exposure to active, hostile combat zones occurred after he retired from the Marines. As a civilian adviser to the Department of Defense, he spent 30 months deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, his role there was to advise commanders on local governance and counterinsurgency strategy, not to engage in direct combat.His status as a prominent military strategist comes from his intellectual work at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and his mastery of Pentagon wargaming, not from a personal record of front-line combat

He wants a hardline against Iran, but does not think we are going about it the right way.

He does though, think we should get Israel involved again. Thats a plus. 👍

Lets see..would I want this former Marine running our intelligence community or Bill Pulte, also no combat experience, housing industry? By the way, as you know, 30 months in these hots spots as an advisor to front line officers is not exactly a vacation.

And Eisenhower had no direct combat experience that I know of. Nor did Lincoln.