Military Strikes on Iran Imminent
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
but you're ok with sending someone else to fight in Iran???
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.
one of my favorite Soviet era novellas is the book "The Ivankiad", by Vladimir Voinovich (who I played beer pong with). It's about his frustration trying to get a larger apartment for his growing family within the "writers collective" building in Moscow. The problem was that he was in competition with a Party toady. Voinovich wonders at some point what work this particular "writer" had authored, so he goes to the library to find that he was the author of "Taiwan: Chinese Land from Time Immemorial".
Agreed. It will take years to determine whether this strategy was more successful than the nation building efforts we made in Iraq. Hi risk / high reward scenario.
Iran has already appointed a new leader. I would be shocked if this was close to over or even changed substantially in a short period of time.
We are woefully unprepared for enacting an actual regime change, and we are vastly underapprecating how entrenched the leadership is. When you combine that level of religious fervor, with institutional control and information control, that's a tough combination.
How do you know we are woefully underprepared or underappreciating anything? I would find it hard to belive that anyone involved is underappreciating anything. Destruction of Iran's military in detail is going to happen. Regime change is an aspirational, but realistic, goal but it's not a guaranteed outcome.
We have several weeks to go yet. It's more than a little premature to declare failure.
Joining in the once the bombing stops where do we go from there
watched an Iranian lady living here in the US describe the issue of like 9 million Iranians want to live as barbaric Muslims and 51 million Iranians want live as a modern progressive peaceful country
Problem is the 9 million are violent savages willing to kill anyone and everyone to get their way while the 51 million are civilzed not wanting or willing to do violence
Conundrum on what comes next after all military is decimated
Still have the crazies in charge
Plus 9 million crazies have all the guns
51 Million have few guns
I would suggest that history should show us that any idea that we can effect real change in Iran without troops on the ground is naive.
I would also really like to hear some reasoning on why this needed to happen now. They haven't exactly tried to make a case to support military action, particularly in light of previous declarations that we "obliterated their nuclear ability for years to come". Those statements don't exactly give me confidence in this administration.
My guess is that there is not a particularly compelling strategic reason as to why now. That said, the only reason that I've seen as to 'why now' that actually makes sense is more tactical. That is, it sounds like the intel suggested that the meeting of senior people presented something of a unique opportunity.
We are not putting troops into Iran. We will complete a detailed defeat of Iran's military. Does that mean we are 100% certain to get every single missile launcher and every single missile? No. But i would bet we'll get pretty damn close. Their air force, all the high end air defense capability and their navy will cease to exist. Israel is working through IRGC / leadership targets. We didn't allow them to do it during the 12 day war last year they are now going wild. Regime change to something more moderate and "better" will have to come from that. It is not inconceivable that it could happen, but we (the US) are not going to get involved in a decades long occupation. There are so many in the military and throughout the administration / congress that know what that looks like and have gotten that T shirt.
Why now? I dont' think the Admin has clearly made that case, at least not publically. I could guess but that would be it. A guess. The best way that i can put it woud be, Given past history we think that conflict is going to happen at some point, and now is the best time to do it. Conditions exist right now that are in 'our' favor that are unlikely to exist again.
- IRAN - the weakest its been in over 4 decades (this includes proxies) .
- Nuclear/ICBM missle programs - "obliterated" or "seriously degraded" or maybe we found out we missed somthing? - But regardless, since the 12 day war Iran has taken concrete steps to continue to pursue goals that the US has long said are not acceptable ( nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them) - Clearly they arent giving up!
- Military (Air Defenses especially ) - almost non existant after the 12 day war. Instant air dominance. , Ballistic missile forces - degraded
- Internal civil unrest, dissatisfaction with the hard-line theocracy - most its ever been
- Leadership / IRGC - External networks in the middle east - serioulsly degraded. IRGC / Iranian government penetrated by Israel (Mossad)
- Russia? Totally occupied with ukraine. Not capable of really anyhing else beyond keeping their nuclear deterrance forces functional.
- Hezbollah - Weakest its ever been. Sat out the 12 day war.
- Hamas - Not a threat .
- Houthis- seriously degraded
- IRGC external networks (syria, Iraq) - decimated
- Other Gulf States- know thar iran is at weakest point in history. supportive of us military action, believe that Trump is the man for the job after 4 years of weak US leadership, want US economic engagement . With Iran neutered, they can normalize relatiopns with israel (larger abraham accords) and get down to business
- Syria - not a threat currently. IRGC influence / operations. Decimated
- Israel
- Resupplied with weapons/munitions and ready to go.
- Has deep penetration of IRCG / Iranian government with ability to pinpoint locations of key leaders and other key assets (high value and high payoff targets) with high degree of confidence. Right now. That ability may degrade over time if not taken advantage of.
- US
- We had time to move sufficient assets into the region to give it a go. Once in place it's too expensive/detrimental to readiness to keep there forever
- Other gulf states on board. Agree to pump more oil to help ameliorate expected oil price shocks
- Gave Iran a chance for a negotiated settlement but decided that it's not goign to happen
- Trump - has a bias for action. if thinks can take decisive action that will beneifit the US with a decent chance of success, he'll do it.
- If, IF Iran as a exporter of terror and instability can be taken off the board and gulf state relations with israel normalized, it will be good for us economically in the long run, and we can focus some of our military forces in the region elsewhere.
- And last but not least, Why not now? - Iran has been killing / attacking americans since 1979 with fingerprints all over incidents throughout the years- so phuk the Ayatolla and his band of crazies
- Hostages in 1979
- Marine Barrack bombing in Beruit
- Willam Buckley, William Higgens, Peter Killburn - kidnapped horribly tortured and killed by iranian proxies
- Tanker War in 1988 and subsequent us military casualties
- Khobar Towers bombing - 1996. Many us military killed.
- USS Cole bombing 2000 - (probable ties to Iran)
- Proxy war in Iraq - IRGC supplied materials and knowledge to insurgent groups to kill and maim us military
- Missile strike after we killed Solemani - injured many us military
- Potential involvement in POTUS assasination attemps
- October 7th - Iran backed. - 46 us citizens killed, to include those taken hostage and tortured before death
Last edited:
Wait, wut?! Why would any Iranian want to attack the United States?! Didn't you Trump Cultists just tell us that your Orange Guru is the "most respected man in the Middle East," and that Iranians "love him?"
Maybe some Iranians have a thing against pedophiles? That could perhaps explain their animus against PIC.
We've been bombing Russia for years through our Ukrainian proxies.
Beijing's warfare is economic.
We're getting regime change because the old regime is dead. That said I'd be surprised if we got regime change that's favorable to the U.S. or Israel. I think the administration knows that. Their goal is to take away as much long and intermediate range missile capability as possible. Neutralize them for the next 4 years.
Why now? I assume Iran is most vulnerable right now. Waiting a few years until they can rebuild their nuclear and missile capability doesn't seem smart.