Iran Super Thread- Merged

[brihard]

Brihard seems to be questioning the US's choice to attack Iran because of the results of past conflicts. I suggest the other option was to continue convening, albeit in a sarcastic way, because that is what the last 40+ years have consisted of with Iran to no effective result.

That’s one of the reasons I’m questioning their choice to attack Iran. Past history does not inspire optimism.

I’m also questioning it becaue they seem to have predicated it right from the start on strategic decisions (e.g., no invasion or occupation) that will make it much harder to achieve what are currently discernible objectives. Now that’s not to say they should go boots on the ground; on the contrary I think an invasion and occupation would be an unmitigated disaster. However, absent one, a campaign of aerial bombing seems pretty dubious in terms of actually solving the Iran problem in the long run.

I’m also questioning it because, several days in now, we see Iran harming many other previously uninvolved countries and we see the conflict continuing to expand and regionalize. I believe this chosen war risks the U.S. further alienating allies or at least friendly nations, and risks the U.S. harming its geopolitical position overall.

I could absolutely be proven wrong about all of this in the fullness of time. Maybe the U.S. will prove largely successful, though I’ll note that every couple of days we’ve seen them admitting this could run even longer. Nothing I’ve seen yet causes me to be optimistic though.

 

[QV]

All of this could apply to any other war you have railed against on multiple occasions. The difference it seems for you is that this time it is Trump.

Sure does. The difference is I railed years after the start about boots on ground for decade+.

For this one, some of you are railing in the opening hours - because it's Trump.

 

[brihard]

Sure does. The difference is I railed years after the start about boots on ground for decade+.

For this one, some of you are railing in the opening hours - because it's Trump.

For the record I would ‘rail against’ these same actions in these same circumstances taken by any president or party. It’s not political affiliation that makes this course of action probably a really bad choice. Stupid is stupid.

 

[brihard]

Video just coming out purporting to be a pair of ballistic missiles hitting a refinery in Bahrain this evening (their time). Others appear to be intercepted. That should make this within the last couple hours.

Iran appears to still be able to achieve effects on strategic economic targets in the gulf using short or medium range ballistic missiles.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029587638768799913

 

[Czech_pivo]

Is it more likely the professionals in the US military provided the US Administration with a very comprehensive options analysis with follow on assumptions and plans? Following that the deciders make the decision and accept the requisite risks associated?

Or are you truly stuck in this space where everyone down there are bumbling fools not thinking about 5 min after?

I suggest this has been in planning and prep for a long time. Just tracking the intelligence and assembling the target packages would have been massive and an ongoing flow.

Based on the track record on how things went down in 1 month to year 3+ in Iraq after Saddam left and how things went in Afghanistan after their installed Karzid and until the end - they really don't have a very good track record over the last 20+yrs.

Do you believe otherwise?

The job of the military is to provide which, military or political options? Also you assume again that those providing the most realistic assessments, rather short term, long term or both are actually being listened to. Time will tell if that's the case. Until then, I'm leaning towards the side based on past examples within that area by the actors currently on stage.

 

[Remius]

Sure does. The difference is I railed years after the start about boots on ground for decade+.

Right but you can see how there are so many similarities. No new wars was a mantra you preached here. Seems inconsistant so it’s hard to take your point seriously. I’m no fan of Megan Kelly, Tucker or MJT but I can respect that their worldview isn’t based on devotion to one man. They seem to be very much against all of this.

For this one, some of you are railing in the opening hours - because it's Trump.

I don’t believe I’ve railed much. I think though most here are able to see the difference between a well executed military operation and a potential geo political quagmire that is likely unprecedented in scope.

While I agree it’s only the beginning and it could be that everything will work out in just a few days or weeks, it does however seem that they are off to a rocky start in trying to define objectives to their own base let alone the American people.

 

[QV]

Based on the track record on how things went down in 1 month to year 3+ in Iraq after Saddam left and how things went in Afghanistan after their installed Karzid and until the end - they really don't have a very good track record over the last 20+yrs.

Do you believe otherwise?

The job of the military is to provide which, military or political options? Also you assume again that those providing the most realistic assessments, rather short term, long term or both are actually being listened to. Time will tell if that's the case. Until then, I'm leaning towards the side based on past examples within that area by the actors currently on stage.

I think the US has an exceptional track record of winning.

Nation building afterwards has always been the problem and more specifically with the kinds of cultures involved (Iraq, Afghan). Note Japan, Germany and prob some more I'm forgetting were all built after destruction. Old examples, but successful ones.

Will Iran (largely Persian) be any different? Hard to tell. But their education level and literacy rates are much higher, large middle class, highly urbanized. These are things that help. Iraq and Afghan had very little of that.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure does. The difference is I railed years after the start about boots on ground for decade+.

For this one, some of you are railing in the opening hours - because it's Trump.

I don't care if its Trump, Biden, Harris or Mike Tyson running the show. The US has failed, miserably, over the last few decades+ at having and successfully executing a long term plan when regime change is their initial stated goal. I'm happy to be wrong on this current issue with Iran. I'd love nothing more than the installing of a government system that respects the rights/opinions of all its citizens, that becomes a participating member of the rest of the world where they respect the rights/borders of its neighbours and others and that allows for the growth, security and participation of all of its citizens. I do not have any hope whatsoever of a 'western' style democracy being set up. there is no meaningful track record of this within Iran and very very few examples of this among its immediate neighbours.

 

[HavokFour]

I'm not sure this is the kind of thing that gets a people to rise up.

Trump says he needs to be involved in selecting Iran's next leader, Axios reports

U.S. President Donald Trump told Axios on Thursday that he needs to ‌be personally involved in selecting Iran's next leader.

www.reuters.com

 

[MrWhyt]

I think the US has an exceptional track record of winning.

nobody is concerned that the US won't defeat Iran's military, it's everything that happens after that that people are concerned about. Are they going break all of Iran's stuff, declare "mission accomplished" and wash their hands of the resulting political situation?

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the US has an exceptional track record of winning.

That sentence sums up nicely the Seinfeld episode where Jerry gets to the Car Rental Agency and says, 'I've got a reservation, I'm here for my car. The person behind the desk says, Yes I see that you have a reservation but sorry we don't have any cars available for you.'

The US has an exceptional track record of 'taking the reservation' but where it really matters, the 'having the car available' it has failed terribly.
The 'taking of the reservation' gives the person the false sense that all is well, all will be alright, I'm got my confirmed reservation and I'll get my car and go to my destination. It's what happens after that matters and the US has failed in the past in allowing the person to get their car and to get to their destination.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Break the country and let the people create a new government; repeat as needed until the would-be rulers get the idea" has always been a CoA. It just hasn't been used very much.

This is, as is usually case, a war of attrition: people (leaders), military equipment and facilities, infrastructure. If the exchanges are lopsided and the relative affordability of replacement even more so, the process is inexorable.

The US and Israel are an immediate problem for Iran. None of Iran's other crises/problems have gone away and will still be there (some aggravated) when this phase of conflict ends, and the government will have to make harder guns/butter choices. Meanwhile, Iran will be weaker relative to opportunistic neighbours. I doubt the religious politicians and fanatics care enough about the future to capitulate to the ostensible US war aims in order to prevent even worse outcomes, but some in their government and military establishments might.

 

[QV]

That sentence sums up nicely the Seinfeld episode where Jerry gets to the Car Rental Agency and says, 'I've got a reservation, I'm here for my car. The person behind the desk says, Yes I see that you have a reservation but sorry we don't have any cars available for you.'

The US has an exceptional track record of 'taking the reservation' but where it really matters, the 'having the car available' it has failed terribly.
The 'taking of the reservation' gives the person the false sense that all is well, all will be alright, I'm got my confirmed reservation and I'll get my car and go to my destination. It's what happens after that matters and the US has failed in the past in allowing the person to get their car and to get to their destination.

It is not necessarily the duty, requirement, or responsibility to make it whole after an ass kicking. The US is smashing Iran. The US could pull up anchor and sail home after obliterating all of Iran's military capability. Promising to return if Iran FA's again.

 

[Maxman1]

What did Jean Chretien say when the US wanted us to go into Iraq ? What did he say about Canadian Gov support for the invasion of Iraq ?

He wanted proof. What kind of a proof? A proof.

 

[Halifax Tar]

He wanted proof. What kind of a proof? A proof.

Jean Chrétien - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For the record I did and still do support that Govs decision not to send Canadians into Iraq.

 

[Fabius]

Article here is about the 2024 engagements but it offers insights into where the Cdns are embedded into the US elements and the experience they are gaining.

https://www.ussf-cfc.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4414151/seconds-matter-guardian-on-the-missile-warning-front-line

 

[MrWhyt]

"Break the country and let the people create a new government; repeat as needed until the would-be rulers get the idea"

yes i burned down your house but now you can do the kitchen renovation you've always been talking about

 

[Maxman1]

Jean Chrétien - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For the record I did and still do support that Govs decision not to send Canadians into Iraq.

Here's his full interview about that.

 

[PrairieFella]

Video just coming out purporting to be a pair of ballistic missiles hitting a refinery in Bahrain this evening (their time). Others appear to be intercepted. That should make this within the last couple hours.

Iran appears to still be able to achieve effects on strategic economic targets in the gulf using short or medium range ballistic missiles.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029587638768799913

Those looked expensive. Hopefully no one was hurt.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

SOFCOM boots on the ground providing targeting.

This isn't a capability that the Americans need from us, USSOCOM alone is larger than our entire Armed Forces.

"Break the country and let the people create a new government; repeat as needed until the would-be rulers get the idea" has always been a CoA. It just hasn't been used very much.

This is, as is usually case, a war of attrition: people (leaders), military equipment and facilities, infrastructure. If the exchanges are lopsided and the relative affordability of replacement even more so, the process is inexorable.

The US and Israel are an immediate problem for Iran. None of Iran's other crises/problems have gone away and will still be there (some aggravated) when this phase of conflict ends, and the government will have to make harder guns/butter choices. Meanwhile, Iran will be weaker relative to opportunistic neighbours. I doubt the religious politicians and fanatics care enough about the future to capitulate to the ostensible US war aims in order to prevent even worse outcomes, but some in their government and military establishment

The US needs to threaten Iran's "trinity of gravity". What is meant A comprehensive Air Campaign along with judicious use of intelligence and selective surgical instruments such as SOCOM and CIA special activities division is perfect for that.

What do I mean by "trinity of gravity"?

1. Economy (the Regime's funding)
2. Military (the Regime's Military Capacity)
3. Population (Achieve a positive effect on the population and isolate the Regime)

If you can knock out two of these 3 pillars, the Regime will be threatened with collapse.

The Iranian Regime throwing a temper tantrum and lobbing missiles at every single neighboring Country only benefits one party: the United States.