View Single Post
Old 04-05-2026 | 03:55 PM
  #655  
ThumbsUp
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
Default

Originally Posted by Turbosina
Sure. I'll generally agree with you on that.

But that doesn't change the reality on the ground in regards to this war. Clearly the White House believed that a few weeks of intense bombing would drive the Iranian regime to collapse. Equally clear is the undeniable fact that Iran 1) currently controls the SoH, and 2) still possesses the capability to do serious damage to the energy infrastructure of the Middle East.

The regime cares about one thing only: its survival. This is a regime that sacrificed countless child soldiers in a decade-long war with Iraq. A regime that happily murdered tens of thousands of protesters just a few months ago. They have nothing to lose. They have no reason to back down. We could indeed destroy their power grid and desalinization plants, and they'd still hunker down, while escalating their own attacks on the Gulf energy infrastructure.

Never in human history has an aerial war alone resulted in the destruction of a regime. The only ways to actually destroy the current Iranian government would be a full scale ground invasion (and a quagmire that would make Iraq look pleasant), or we launch a nuclear first strike, with the very real possibility of igniting World War 3.

Every American president since 1979 has understood this. Except, it would appear, for the current one.
My comments have nothing to do with the war, per se.

But I also think that it is naive to think that this wasn’t going to happen eventually. About all you can do is make them Gaza every few decades to slow their progress. The regime has too iron of a grip on their country for a popular uprising and the mullahs would never give up their nuclear ambitions.
Reply