Military Strikes on Iran Imminent
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
Yet we have undeniable proof that the Iranian regime has brutally murdered 40,000+ of their own citizens, sponsored terrorist groups who have killed American citizens and soldiers, been perfectly clear in their desire to eliminate Israel and US and have continue their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and still you believe we should sit on our *** and do nothing?
Iran is a threat to our alliance and to us and has acted on it.
The fact they we have people in congress that hate America is maddening.
nothing to see here....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...cs-american-soil-preach-prophetic-showdown-us
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...cs-american-soil-preach-prophetic-showdown-us
Miscellaneous thoughts, 48 hours in...
1. At the outset, let me emphasize that I'm just not a supporter of regime change through offensive military action. Simply stated, it isn't, and shouldn't, be who we are.
2. These things never have the nice neat end that people who draw lines on maps think they will, especially in this part of the world, and I doubt they will this time either. I particularly doubt that this is going to trigger some popular uprising.
3. That said, now that we're here, we ought to recognize that this is in fact has the potential to be a historic game-changer...at like a fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall level. Now that we've dealt the hand, we might as well play it for all it's worth. To remove Iran from the mid-east political dynamic (and for that matter, its involvement outside of the mid-east like Ukraine) is potentially a really big deal. But have no doubt that there is downside risk here - just as there was when we sought to create a similar game-changer when we invaded Iraq.
4. Yes, the president has some inherent authority to act, and yes, the WPA processes have to be respected here, and my sense is that is ongoing. IIRC though, the President gets something like 60 days absent Congressional action. But...if I were democrats, I'd be careful about just how (and how far) to proceed with WPA processes, and I sure as heck wouldn't have Tim Kaine leading that process. One could easily see a range of possible outcomes that would include an actual extension outside of 60 days, if not even a full-on authorization, given the composition of the chambers.
5. As I've suggested elsewhere, I'd guess that over half of the stuff you see on X is unreliable at one level or another. So use it to triangulate, but take it with a very large grain of salt. Re the strike at the girls' school, wouldn't be surprising (just as the death of us service members is not surprising), but also was not particularly surprised when I read a reliable piece (from BBC I think?) indicating that the school was colocated next to an IRGC base. (Or is it the other way around?)
1. At the outset, let me emphasize that I'm just not a supporter of regime change through offensive military action. Simply stated, it isn't, and shouldn't, be who we are.
2. These things never have the nice neat end that people who draw lines on maps think they will, especially in this part of the world, and I doubt they will this time either. I particularly doubt that this is going to trigger some popular uprising.
3. That said, now that we're here, we ought to recognize that this is in fact has the potential to be a historic game-changer...at like a fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall level. Now that we've dealt the hand, we might as well play it for all it's worth. To remove Iran from the mid-east political dynamic (and for that matter, its involvement outside of the mid-east like Ukraine) is potentially a really big deal. But have no doubt that there is downside risk here - just as there was when we sought to create a similar game-changer when we invaded Iraq.
4. Yes, the president has some inherent authority to act, and yes, the WPA processes have to be respected here, and my sense is that is ongoing. IIRC though, the President gets something like 60 days absent Congressional action. But...if I were democrats, I'd be careful about just how (and how far) to proceed with WPA processes, and I sure as heck wouldn't have Tim Kaine leading that process. One could easily see a range of possible outcomes that would include an actual extension outside of 60 days, if not even a full-on authorization, given the composition of the chambers.
5. As I've suggested elsewhere, I'd guess that over half of the stuff you see on X is unreliable at one level or another. So use it to triangulate, but take it with a very large grain of salt. Re the strike at the girls' school, wouldn't be surprising (just as the death of us service members is not surprising), but also was not particularly surprised when I read a reliable piece (from BBC I think?) indicating that the school was colocated next to an IRGC base. (Or is it the other way around?)
Last edited:
Agree 100% this is far from over and could quickly turn into a quagmire. Trump needs to wrap this up within his stated 1 month time frame or he is going to quickly lose the support of his base. Starting wars, increasing debt, and high inflation are not the MAGA platform.
On the flip side, if he can get things to a simmer within a month, then i would imagine you will see him gain a lot of support. A truly historic move.
I don't think an honest assessment of if this regime change is a success or not can be determined in less than a decades time.
And X is not the only place where the news is unreliable .....
it's interesting...i was texting with a buddy yesterday who did a ton of redevelopment work, at a very senior level, in that part of the world between 2000-2020. His take was that Iran was invariably behind most of the efforts to **** those efforts up, whether financially, militarily, or politically.
Disclaimer: I do not believe this, I am simply trying to put forth some perspective.
What if China attacked us? Stay with me here. Under the logic above, couldn’t China postulate that the US is deploying troops on its own soil against its own people and rounding up civilians in violations of the law (and some of which have been killed)? Couldn’t China say that between tariffs and cutting off oil supplies we are already engaged in economic warfare with them? Couldn’t China say our unyielding support of Taiwan is a territorial threat to their country? Would you support preemptive strikes by China (understanding it would be mutually assured destruction and such)?
Now, I fully anticipate all manner of name-calling, whataboutism, and general disregard for the point I am trying to make along with this perspective penetrating some of the minds on here like a BB off a tank, but there is some logic there.
interesting hypo, though i don't really think some of the analogies are particularly compelling, and that last little parenthetical qualifier about MAD certainly is a material one.
1. As to a nation killing its own citizens, I'm not really sure how that's a justification in either case TBH, though the scale (in terms of both numbers, timeline, and other qualitative factors such as citizens v noncitizens) between Iran and the US is pretty clearly distinguishable.
2. Putative economic warfare is probably the most compelling basis, and indeed, was a big part of the Pacific theater part of WWII.
3. I have my doubts that Taiwan is a territorial threat to China, and certainly not in the sense of an analog to Iranian support of terror within the region.
interesting hypo, though i don't really think some of the analogies are particularly compelling, and that last little parenthetical qualifier about MAD certainly is a material one.
1. As to a nation killing its own citizens, I'm not really sure how that's a justification in either case TBH, though the scale (in terms of both numbers, timeline, and other qualitative factors such as citizens v noncitizens) between Iran and the US is pretty clearly distinguishable.
2. Putative economic warfare is probably the most compelling basis, and indeed, was a big part of the Pacific theater part of WWII.
3. I have my doubts that Taiwan is a territorial threat to China, and certainly not in the sense of an analog to Iranian support of terror within the region.
I would argue that to China, Taiwan is more of a threat to them than Iran is to the US. They are certainly much closer and able to attack them militarily.
Iran is terrible, no denial from me, but why in the world we keep thinking we are going to be able to effectively institute change in the Middle East I will not understand. It's the Definition of Insanity.
Yeah, you’re not wrong, especially on point 1. I agree point 2 would be their strongest argument, but China does seem to think it already owns Taiwan so I wouldn’t discount #3. At the end of the day it is absolutely MAD so it is just a conversation piece (hopefully/thankfully).interesting hypo, though i don't really think some of the analogies are particularly compelling, and that last little parenthetical qualifier about MAD certainly is a material one.
1. As to a nation killing its own citizens, I'm not really sure how that's a justification in either case TBH, though the scale (in terms of both numbers, timeline, and other qualitative factors such as citizens v noncitizens) between Iran and the US is pretty clearly distinguishable.
2. Putative economic warfare is probably the most compelling basis, and indeed, was a big part of the Pacific theater part of WWII.
3. I have my doubts that Taiwan is a territorial threat to China, and certainly not in the sense of an analog to Iranian support of terror within the region.
I don't think this is going to last a month. My guess (hope) is 2 weeks.
The question is what happens with new Iranian leadership. The Iranian people want regime change but I don't see any leaders stepping up. I worry that we'll be right back where we started in a few years.