The area where “communication and negotiation” leaves off and “blackmail” begins is both very broad and very gray. Nonetheless, a nation emerging from theocracy is likely a better fit for us than one embracing an apocalyptic form of theocracy - especially if they are nuke capable.

One can never really know what goes on in the mind of the other guy. Is Iran touting a non existent capability to rapidly develop a nuclear warhead to fit on a burgeoning ballistic missile capability? Did they learn nothing from Saddam’s desire for strategic ambiguity as to whether or not he actually had WMDs? Nonetheless, when you spend almost half a century getting the mob to shout “Death to America” and you couple that with statements that you can have nukes in a few weeks the conservative (as in cautious, not left-right) course becomes one of keeping that from happening. It’s the kind of implied threat that raises the ante considerably in any conflict. Preemption becomes a very reasonable choice.

 

Due to the deep integration of the IRGC into basically everything in Iran, it will be hard to get a new regime that's not similar to the old one without invasion/occupation.

Best we can likely hope for is regime 2.0 with an enlightened sense of self-interest/preservation which chooses to be more cooperative.

But with that said it's by no means an absolute that you can't force a regime change with air power, that would be situationally dependent. What you clearly can't do without major BoG is take over a country, install your own government, and attempt nation-building. Curt Lemay was mostly wrong, but that's not an absolute.

1. That's not happening (if it did happen, it would be IL not us).

2. It would not start WW-III. RU isn't going to commit national MAD suicide just to lash out in support of IR. RU knows they would absolutely lose MAD, and given the state of their military there's no assurance that the US would also lose to anywhere near the same degree. MAD itself is in serious doubt right now, looking kind of one-sided. Which isn't a big deal because neither party has any need to go there.

3. PRC is not a nuclear super-power. They also would not commit national suicide just to lash out in defense of IR.


Nukes used against IR is actually a real possibility at some point given IL's situation (unless the IR nuclear program goes away for good). But everybody knows that and is prepared for the possibility (while also hoping it doesn't come to that). If it happens it will have a chilling effect on geopolitics and likely global economies... we'll be living in a new reality, and nobody is certain what that looks like.

But IR isn't rushing head-long into nuclear oblivion... there's a reason they slow-roll their nuclear program, it's because they don't want to spook IL by getting to close, or progressing too fast. They might of course miscalculate though. It is also unfortunately possible given their fundamentalism and certain specific tenants of Shia Islam (return of the 12th Imam) that a sufficiently fundamental leader, given sufficient authority, might willingly embrace armageddon to facilitate the projected end of days. Or at least willing take the chance. Inshallah.

 

IL doesn't believe anything IR says.

IL's decision will be based entirely on their own (and maybe US) intel and their own assessments. It certainly doesn't help when IR leaders threaten to nuke TLV... for that reason the IL red-line will be based on capability, not assessed intent.

As you know but for the benefit of others, there's a very old military axiom that you must plan for what the enemy is *capable* of doing, not what you *expect* him to do. Otherwise you're subject to a rude awakening.

 

why do we have to give a **** about IL? Why are we in a non-negotiable bond with them? I wish we would renegotiate.

 

Beacuse...

1) Oil
2) IL has been the only consistently reliable partner we have in the region.

Yes there's holocaust PTSD and voter sympathy at home (more so in the past) but the real reason is and always has been the need to ensure stability of the oil supply. No, it's not about making a few oil company execs rich, it's about preserving the US and global economies. There's no alternate reality where oil is not a fundamental underpinning of that.

With that said, in 2026 several ME states are actually now quite stable and relatively reliable. So it might be possible to disengage from IL and rely on other regional partners. Which would be worse than useless if IL then gets backed into a corner and resorts to nukes....

We also benefit from having IL close because then we have some insight and influence on *their* behavior.

 

Fall out from the holocaust for one thing. Touchy topic. 2nd only to the history of civil rights measures enacted since Lee’s surrender at Appomattox court house, 1865. Iran’s unwavering pledge to end Israel’s existence as a sovereign ME flag by whatever means possible another. This in an age where one or two H bomb strikes might do the job.

 

Non-negotiable, maybe only because the bond is a slavery bond, and the US is not the master.

Commercial traffic on the high seas was doing great until the US did the master's bidding this year.

You really think that Bibi or Donald are crazy enough to want to want skip the cheaper, easier step and go straight into the bombing? Brother, that's even more tinfoil.

Blackmail doesn't need to be pictures of a certain person (Epstein style). There is nuclear blackmail/extortion (Samson option) too. Then there's also just the inappropriate leverage that they wield over their benefactor - "We're gonna bomb them unless you bomb them first, and you have to do it by this day" and who knows what other threats they've made or insinuated privately. Donald is definitely terrified of getting JFK'ed or having his family killed for calling them on their BS.

IL fed the US all the lies about Iraq, claiming that they were capable of nukes, etc. The amount of human lives lost in Iraq because of that is over one million counting excess deaths. The US taxpayers also lost over trillion dollars, who knows how many lives in the US could have been saved by using that money domestically to solve issues at home.

There is little doubt that the intel they feed the US now may be hyperbole or completely untrue. Would it really be shocking if IL fed the US incorrect intel that led to the school in IR being bombed? The more Iranian civilians that die, the less likely the US is able to pull out of doing IL's dirty work, that's a huge motivator for IL to make sure that collateral damage is maximized.

Blackmail, extortion, politicians thinking that a million or two in AIPAC donations is worth squandering their children's future away? who knows exactly why.

 

The only consistently reliable things that IL does for the US seem to be cashing the checks that the US sends, accepting the delivery of the weapons, and dragging the US into conflicts that do not benefit regional stability.

There was a pretty damn stable oil supply coming from the gulf states until the US and IL decided to put an end to that.

How is it the US's responsibility? The US already did them the favor and put an end to Holocaust. Shouldn't IL being doing favors for the US instead of the US now being constantly dragged into doing unethical favors for them?

 

AIPAC money.

 

War crimes are only war crimes if you lose.