Don’t like implication as pro USA people. As a pro U.S. person, I couldn’t care less what Iran is doing with its oil. They have historically been a patriotic nation who are used to being more poor than the poorest people in America. Who do you think will break first? The Iranian public? Or the American public?

Can’t wait to see “the deal.” And wonder how different it’s going to be than compared to Obama.

My bad, I should’ve been more specific. I insist on what I said, 100%, but as bad and toxic as that is, so is the other side if they use the same tactics and extremes.
TDS is way more common if you ask me though.

I can’t see any deal with them that is worth a damn. You don’t start something if you don’t have the will to finish it. You either chose a nuclear armed terror-state or annihilate their will to be so.

Uhhh, ya know Wink, after thinking it over a few, let’s go with nuke terror state for $200

What exactly does “finish it” look like in a country the size of Alaska with 92 million people?

ok great, how many 18 year old american kids are you willing to sacrifice for this?

That is a common refrain from most pacifists. I don’t think any common enemy would be worth it in your/their minds.

I’m assuming with a lot of dead IRGC and mullahs.

We did. Still didn’t work.

Now what?

That’s absolutely true.

What have I witnessed, about US armed engagement? Every day since the surrender of Saigon (30Apr75) ??? Somebody lines you up for a war you just can’t say no to….didi. run. Like ricky tik. Total bs the whole detail. Come back when it’s over. Die another day;)

Huh? We didn’t even scratch the surface.

I’m still voting for nukes. Worked pretty well with the Code of Bushido zealots. They’ve been well behaved - in fact, exceptionally polite - for the last 80 years now.

pacifist lol. How many tclass checks have you done buddy?

An air war has already objectively proven that it won’t work. In order to keep the straight open (much less topple the iranian government) you would need to establish a defense in depth on land inside Iranian territory.

Please enlighten me how you would do this without providing actual physical troops inside the border of Iran?

we have two direct examples of failed wars in the Middle East, and yet people still buy into this easy war crap

Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan did not serve the national interest. Nor does Ukraine. Preventing a nuclear armed terror state does. That would likely take boots on the ground, yes.

To clarify, you are saying us nuke Iran. Do I have that right?


And if so with that being said, can you blame Iran for wanting a nuke? You’re threatening their existence with a nuke (something ironically Israel feels all the time). You’re just giving them even more reasons to want a nuke.


Code of Bushido Zealots? So what you are saying is that if an OUTSIDE aggressor bombs your country, nuking them in return is a fair response in order to get them to permanently stop and be well behaved.


If so, then Iran needs nukes like yesterday.

That defies the very tenets of voting for the candidate that espoused America first, no more wars, more isolation.

how is Iran closing the straight? Wasn't boats going through until the US closed it again a few days ago?
I dont think Iran can really do anything anymore except delay negotiations.

You make it sound like every voter votes for everything on an election platform. I’m sure that not every democrat wants socialism or men on women’s sports teams, but you vote more along the centerline thrust of what you want out of a political party.

Absolutely unbelievable take.

This isn’t that hard. They fire a few rockets & damage a few tankers. Then the people who own and insure said tankers stop sailing through that particular body of water because the risk is just too high when you consider the extent of their investment. A few ships went through because either they a) coordinated with & probably paid the Iranians, or b) thought the warring parties were actually serious about a “ceasefire” (they weren’t). To sum it up, Iran can hold significant sway over the strait, even if they’ve been reduced to a limited number of crude weapons.

Shirley you can't be serious.

You are so close to hitting the nail on the head. If we didn’t have the will to defeat the Taliban over nearly two decades in Afghanistan, what makes you think the American people will stomach the effort it will take to unseat a regime that is far more sophisticated, better funded, and determined? You may wish the reality were different, but it’s not. An extended campaign, likely involving tens of thousands of ground troops, significant casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and real sacrifice from the American public, is a pipe dream and you know it (or at least you should). There’s a reason previous leaders didn’t want to be sucked into such a conflict & it wasn’t because they were all a bunch faint hearted sissy boys. This whole stupid crisis is a realtime lesson in why international policy is not something you just want to walk into unprepared & wing it. Nevertheless, that’s just what we’ve done & we’re now stuck with nothing but bad outcomes. The most likely one is that we make a deal that will be touted as marginally better than the JCPOA, but won’t be. The only question is do we get to that point in a couple weeks, a couple years, or a couple decades?

This is fair. We’ve all been conditioned to paint each other with a broad brush. We should all try harder to resist that temptation.

The Iranians hatred of the Ayatollah and IRGC is far, far lower than their hatred of being bombed by Israel and the United States. That’s why there was no street protest and any overthrowing of the Iranian regime. When a country is attacked unprovoked by a foreign country, said countrymen put aside their differences and unite. Which is why I think the average Iranian would actually be pro-regime if they are under attack.


We are not “winning” this. Best to just throw up a mission accomplished banner and leave. All warships out. And if we are lucky, Iran opens up SOH in 1-3 months then.

I’m thinking unarmed citizens that experience a high rate of murder at the hands of their own government aren’t going to overthrow a hostile regime. How many thousands of Iranians are dead under these radicals? Without a doubt allied assets are on the ground in Iran and at Langley pouring over intel, making contacts and ciphering ideas on arming a resistance faction. Obviously not a short term plan if Iranians are to overthrow the totalitarians.

Economic siege seems to be the main game plan for now. Allows the US to regroup, rearm and reinforce. NATO is waking up slowly and France has decided to make a showing. Now that a Chinese tanker is on fire, I bet they start turning up pressure on Iran to make a deal.

Im hesitant, but it’s still early. Guessing if any boots hit the ground soon it will be Airborne units hitting Kharg Island. I don’t expect any inland American troops based on what’s been said publicly, but I could be very wrong. I hope it doesn’t go that way.

I am of course not an expert, but I do know that every administration prior to this one since the Shah was overthrown had a battle plan for Iran.

Game plans unfortunately that went nowhere good. So yeah, let’s speculate…

Iran; market setting petro handle. ME fertilizer mainstay apparently. Give or take 40m hardcore shariah Muslims chanting before AK47 mullahs. Russian shade. Bone dry as a Mormon wedding reception. Infidel tolerance scale, nil.

Israel; 10m sabbath pilgrims. Surrounded by who knows how many hostiles on every corner. Nukes. Abundant multinational bank and trading leverage. Tacit control of most major motion picture studios and of course 4 mainstream NA networks including fox.

Odds on further engagement…favorable within next 4 quarters. Ck meto out on poly:)

Probably one of then worst takes out there but I'm sure the Iranians just love you telling them what is good for them.

There are no Iranians protesting in the street because the Government mowed them all down with bullets just a couple of months ago. Wow, talk about tone death.

Worked for Truman

Pathetically, he is, and his favorite words are feckless and realpolitik.

You might be surprised, but the Iranian people are actually *not* rallying to the regime flag.

At least not yet, hard to say which direction that will go if this drags out.

What they also did not do, was rise up against the IRGC and overthrow the regime. I never had any high hopes for that.

We kind of kicked the hornets nest, we really are stuck with trying to see it through now. Otherwise they could resume their behavior to some degree if we don't retain economic levers on them.

So in one breath you condemn the IRGC for murdering 30,000 of their own people, and in the second breath you say that we should murder a few million? Do you even listen to your own ravings?

That was vastly different circumstances, not even remotely comparable.

I don't think the CoC would even obey an order to nuke Tehran, or any other part of IR without some really compelling reasons.

Not happening, stupid to even discuss.

Literally a conversation we had in one of my college freshman classes. I was about 10 years older than most in the room and we were discussing the current ME conflict (this was about 25 years ago). The dumbest person in the room blurted out "I don't understand why we don't just nuke 'em. It worked in Japan". Literally every person in the room, most of them 18 year old kids, turned to look at her with the WTF look on their faces.

On April 7th Trump threatened, via truth social i believe, to use nuclear weapons. (The tell wasn't just the end of a civilization part...it was the 'from which it wll not come back' portion)
About an hour or two later, a 30 day cease fire was announced.

The following is pure speculation on my part:
Did this cause an uproar in his inner circle?
Did Gen. Cain tell him whether or not such an order would be carried out?
Was there finally a check on his impulsive Id, or was it a nothing burger? (Just blather due to his not understanding the enormity of what he posted)
Did the Iranians consider it a credible threat, and hence agree to the cease fire?

Your extreme bias is showing if this is what you make of that statement.

Really? Why is that?

Doubtful any smiles in the IDF classroom. Just because a mullah looks like rip van winkle doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t order up a mushroom maker suicide attack.

I think you’re reading way too much into his strategy. He does art of the deal style stuff where he says something insane and over the top to get a reaction. IMO, he desperately wants out of this and won’t resume hostilities unless Iran escalates in a big way. His antics are funny when he’s going after Chuck Schumer or Liz Warren, but in a hot war, against an actual opponent, with very little buy in from our allies, it’s tiring and not funny.

Respectfully disagree. A series of air burst tactical nukes along the Iranian coast opposite the strait of Hormuz would certainly obviate the need for boots on the ground in that area, and reestablish the fact that Iran has no right under international law to extort fees from passing ships.

Refusing to allow holding ships hostage for payment on international waters has been US policy for a long time, the precedent for use of force against sovereign powers to enforce that policy going back to the US Marines attacking Derna in 1805 at the First Barbary War.

Nobody is suggesting nuking Tehran or even Bandar Abbas. The target area is lightly populated, mostly by combatants:

alt=""https://i.ibb.co/ccKPZ9KV/C754-B569-...C35-A27050.jpg

Thirty-five years plus of “peace dividends” have rendered most of our European allies pretty much irrelevant militarily.