Top aides advise Trump blasting Iran’s infrastructure is fair game

[rangerrebew]

 Top aides advise Trump blasting Iran’s infrastructure is fair game

WASHINGTON—Top aides have privately made the case to President Trump in recent days that Iran’s power-generating facilities and bridges are legitimate military targets because destroying them could cripple the country’s missile and nuclear programs, officials say.

Trump embraced the rationale, sharply questioned by legal experts and human-rights groups, in a nationwide address Wednesday when he vowed to bomb Iran “back to the stone ages.”
 
By Saturday, as an urgent rescue mission was under way to find a missing U.S. aviator whose aircraft was shot down in Iran, the president showed no signs of backing down on the new strategy.

“Remember when I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” he posted on Truth Social. “Time is running out—48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/top-aides-advise-trump-blasting-iran-s-infrastructure-is-fair-game/ar-AA209Gx7

[Free Vulcan]

Maybe, but it might not be the wisest course of action.

[Timber Rattler]

Maybe, but it might not be the wisest course of action.

Nah, I say level it all, World War II-style.  The Iranians have had it coming since 1979, and it will teach them and our other adversaries a lesson.

[Fishrrman]

"Top aides have privately made the case to President Trump in recent days that Iran’s power-generating facilities and bridges are legitimate military targets because destroying them could cripple the country’s missile and nuclear programs, officials say"

I think this could backfire.

It would have the affect of impacting "ordinary people" who are not supportive of the regime -- like the ones we saw in videos who cheered when government/military assets were hit.

Gee whiz ... I thought all this bombing over the last few weeks would certainly have had the effect of "crippling" iran's missile and nuclear programs. You mean... you mean... that... it hasn't ???

If they're still functioning now, some in protected underground cities that are probably a good distance from populated areas, what good are attacks on civilian infrastructure going to accomplish -- other than turning the civilians against the USA?

If there are strategic assets that we know about yet haven't been able "to reach" with our weapons so far, then perhaps we had better reconsider what sort of "weapons" are going to be required to finish off such installations, once and for all (you KNOW what I'm talking about).

Sorry if you don't care for this reply.