Live Thread: War With Iran Continues #4

[massadvj]

May be time for you to perform Hari-Kari.

Do you need a sword?

I am willing to engage in debate on substance, and always confine my comments accordingly.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2057817017386766846

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am willing to engage in debate on substance, and always confine my comments accordingly.

I read the substance of your comment to be we have lost and always will lose, so what purpose do you believe you have to continue living?

[Idiot]

Am I being a problem here?

Naah....keep sharing your opinion. 

[massadvj]

I read the substance of your comment to be we have lost and always will lose, so what purpose do you believe you have to continue living?

Why do you want to make this about me personally?

[Idiot]

Why do you want to make this about me personally?

Because he's a grumpy old codger like most of us here.  Don't take it personally, I know I don't anymore.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Why do you want to make this about me personally?

I won't tolerate making it about you personally, I have great respect for your opinions (that we don't hear enough of around here)!  I am hoping for the unlikely event that you are wrong about this.  I think Victor Davis Hanson would disagree with you, so the stage is set for a truly great debate!

[BobfromWB]

I'm still holding out some hope here.  Trump is NOT a stupid man. He took out the Ayatollah and many others  He did go into Iran full throttle -- something or someone made him pause.  He normally is one step ahead of the game.  So, the question we may now never know the answer to is who or what stopped him??

My money is on Ivanka Trump

[Bigun]

I think we have the capability, the military has the will, the question remains, does President Trump have the will?  If he doesn't, he needs to get our people out of there and let Iran have their way with the region.

That would be a Jimmy Carter level screw-up that will eventually lead to our collapse as a "Superpower" over the next couple of decades.  The stakes are that high.

  I agree fully.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why do you want to make this about me personally?

The purpose in this forum is to exchange meaningful dialogue.

You have made it clear you believe we can never win a war in the Middle East even though history tells us many wars have been fought there and won over the many centuries of engagement by Westerners.  Go back and read history since Alexander the Great and Roman times.

My hyperbole is that you believe your fate is sealed to be defeated.  Many of us believe otherwise.

Pessimism is a destructive force that is unAmerican and anti-Christian.

[BobfromWB]

Regime change is impossible in Iran. The mountains protect Tehran from invasion forces, plus the mullahs have literally killed every potential dissident leader in the country.  A US military that cannot secure the Strait of Hormuz certainly cannot defeat a regime that will kill every civilian if it has to, and will fight to the very last man.

Mountains do not stop paratroopers, do not stop helicopter troops etc. It is not impossible, just difficult. The Straits would be secure, if 47 allowed the US military the freedom to secure it without countermanding the order hours or days later.

Unless 47 overthrows/does away with the Mad Mullahs and the IRGC, expect to be nuked a few months or years from now ... in accordance with their religious dream.

Had 47 not gone in when he did the chances are that Israel and other targets would have been nuked by now.

Taking those nut cases out is not a luxury, its a necessity.

[BobfromWB]

bele rings out with:
"Generals and others have told Trump not to trust Iran and that they are only using this time to rebuild, restrengthen and rearm.  Don't you see anything wrong with Trump not moving??? Especially since he continues to repeatedly kick the can down the road."

Once more I'm going to repeat it:
Mr. Trump cannot do what needs to be done to result in "victory" against iran.
BUT
Having said that, NO other president would be willing to do it, either.
BECAUSE
Doing so will require at the minimum a ground invasion, close-in naval attack, and possibly the use of at least some small tactical nuclear weapons.

Like Levi Zendt in Michener's novel "Centennial", Mr. Trump has "seen the elephant".
And that's what has stopped him -- and perhaps even those military men who influence him -- from going further.

I'm going to take A GUESS that even Mr. Trump realizes by now that meaningful negotiations in good faith with/by the Iranians are impossible.

At this point, what alternatives (other than what I've posted above) remain?

C'mon, folks, knock me down with your replies.
I'm dumb, I'm easy.
So give it your best shot.

I wish WE were willing to give iran "our best shot".
But the America that was once united enough to do that is long gone.
Like Shane, it has ridden off into the sunset.
And it's not coming back.

Its a necessity to take them out as soon as possible, however possible - there can be no hesitation, as they will not hesitate to use any nuclear weapons they develop.

Which is the greater price - loss of US troops, or loss of a US city or two? Iran is not Iraq or Afghan, as neither had nukes nor the will to use them, if they did. Iran has both.

[Cyber Liberty]

Mountains do not stop paratroopers, do not stop helicopter troops etc. It is not impossible, just difficult. The Straits would be secure, if 47 allowed the US military the freedom to secure it without countermanding the order hours or days later.

Unless 47 overthrows/does away with the Mad Mullahs and the IRGC, expect to be nuked a few months or years from now ... in accordance with their religious dream.

Had 47 not gone in when he did the chances are that Israel and other targets would have been nuked by now.

Taking those nut cases out is not a luxury, its a necessity.

This is the precipice upon which we stand!  As difficult as it is, the cost of failure is too damned high!  As for the question of should we have started it in the first place?  I think your analysis is spot on:  Iran would have nuked Israel (and others, notably the Sunnis) by now.

[Bigun]

Mountains do not stop paratroopers, do not stop helicopter troops etc. It is not impossible, just difficult. The Straits would be secure, if 47 allowed the US military the freedom to secure it without countermanding the order hours or days later.

Unless 47 overthrows/does away with the Mad Mullahs and the IRGC, expect to be nuked a few months or years from now ... in accordance with their religious dream.

Had 47 not gone in when he did the chances are that Israel and other targets would have been nuked by now.

Taking those nut cases out is not a luxury, its a necessity.

 

[libertybele]

Possible  progress??  Rubio perhaps is trying to head Trump in the right direction.  We're over there ...  something obviously needs to be done. Either we finish what we started or we lose BIGLY with a huge risk of being nuked by Iran.  U.S. and partners?  Other than Israel, those partners are few and far between.  I believe that is problematic.  Also, I don't believe that Trump wants to risk the lives of U.S. troops that goes completely against his moral fabric.

Live Updates: Rubio says "slight progress" in Iran peace talks, but rejects Strait of Hormuz "tolling system"

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that indirect negotiations over a potential deal to end the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran had seen "a little bit of movement, and that's good."
Rubio has tempered expectations for a peace agreement, however, alluding to unresolved differences over Iran's nuclear enrichment and calling Iranian efforts to "create a tolling system" in the Strait of Hormuz "not acceptable." He said the U.S. and its partners must "have a Plan B" if Iran refuses to reopen the strait.
President Trump said earlier this week that he was willing to wait "a couple of days" for an Iranian response to the latest American offer, but he warned that "we have to get the right answers" to avoid a return to war. ..............

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-us-peace-talks-strait-of-hormuz-control/

[BobfromWB]

Even if we do succeed (which is very unlikely), what is to prevent a repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which are now worse off than they were before we "defeated" them. This is the Middle East. It's Chinatown, Jake.

When Trump ran for election, he seemed to understand that.

'

Again, neither Iraq or Afghanistan had nuclear weapons. Iran is a totally different - an enemy of the world. Iran wants to kill as many people as possible, which means using nuclear weapons as soon and as often as possible. You are not immune from Iranian nuclear weapons.

[Timber Rattler]

May be time for you to perform Hari-Kari.

Do you need a sword?

So you're suggesting a regular member here commit suicide?

Not good at all.

 

[Timber Rattler]

Your pessimism = my realism. One has to look beyond the rhetoric and look at all possible results for any action, regardless of politics and politicians of the moment.

Agreed 100%

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Did we "come out on top" after "defeating" Saddam in Iraq? Did we "come out on top" after "defeating" the Taliban in Afghanistan?

This is the Middle East. I will say it again. It is Chinatown, Jake. You do not stick your hand in that coconut, and if you do, you get what you deserve.

Trump seemed to understand this when he was running for election. But the military industrial complex seems to be able to intoxicate presidents. In Trump's case, this was easy to do since Trump thinks he is all-powerful, and readily succumbs to threats to his manhood, as well as appeals to his vanity.

This mess isn't Trump's plan.  After the Netanyahu/Mossad presentation in February, Trump vetoed the regime change war trap and supported targeted killings and diminishment of Iran's military capabilities.  But, Netanyahu forced Trump's hand ---- he; wasn't waiting any longer for the US to defeat Iran.  It was a smart move for Netanyahu, but it trapped Trump.

More info follows @massadvj

AI Overview

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led a high-stakes, hourlong presentation on Iran for President Donald Trump and his senior aides in the White House Situation Room. The highly classified meeting set the stage for coordinated U.S.-Israeli military actions and was considered a turning point in the escalation of the conflict.

Key Details of the Briefing:Date & Setting: February 11.  It is very rare for a foreign leader to present directly to the president in the Situation Room.

Visual Setup: Netanyahu sat directly across from Trump. He was accompanied virtually by Mossad Director David Barnea and Israeli military officials who appeared on large screens behind him to project a united war cabinet.

⬇️⬇️⬇️
The Pitch: Netanyahu detailed plans to destroy Iran's ballistic missiles in a matter of weeks, keep the Strait of Hormuz open, and trigger internal regime change. He even showed a video outlining potential post-clerical leaders for Iran.

U.S. Administration Reaction: President Trump was receptive to the pitch and was quoted as saying, "Sounds good to me". However, U.S. intelligence officials, including the CIA Director, privately dismissed the regime change scenarios as "farcical" and detached from reality.

U.S. Attendees: Key national security officials present included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

For further context on how this Situation Room meeting led to the unfolding of the conflict, you can read the The New York Times investigative feature on the administration's decision-making process: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html

Netanyahu made a "hard sell" for attacking Iran, the NYT report claimed, adding that he pitched a number of options for a new Iranian leader who would take over when the current regime fell, including Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

He also told Trump and the US officials that Iran's ballistic missile program could be destroyed within a few weeks, during which time the Iranian regime would be so weak that it would not be able to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the NYT report claimed.

[...]

The following day, the American officials and Trump had a private meeting, without Netanyahu and the Israeli team, to discuss the results of the US intelligence analysis of a possible war with Iran. They broke down the Israeli prime minister's proposal into four parts: Killing the ayatollah, decimating Iran's ability to threaten its neighbors, a popular uprising in Iran, and finally, regime change with a secular leader being installed to govern the country.

US officials, according to the New York Times, deemed the first two objectives to be reasonable, but the third and fourth were "detached from reality." The CIA director reportedly described Netanyahu's regime change plans as "farcical," and Rubio echoed his sentiments, saying, "In other words, it's bull****."

⬇️⬇️⬇️
Trump was most interested in accomplishing the first two parts of Netanyahu's plan - killing Ali Khamenei and diminishing Iran's military capabilities. Regime change would be "their problem," Trump said, per the NYT.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/inside-situation-room-did-netanyahu-024304234.html.

SOS Rubio's initial explanation for the preemptive US strikes against Iran in March 2026 (restarting the war) -----

AI Overview

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the United States launched preemptive strikes on Iran in early March because they knew Israel was planning its own military action against Iran, which would have triggered Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces.

Rubio explained the timeline and reasoning to reporters in Washington:Impending Israeli Strike: The U.S. was aware that Israel was on the brink of launching military action against Iran.

Anticipated Retaliation: U.S. intelligence determined that if Israel attacked, Iran would immediately strike U.S. assets and personnel in the region.

Preemptive Defense: To avoid taking a hit and suffering higher casualties, President Trump ordered a preemptive strike on Iran.

Rubio faced significant media and political scrutiny over the remarks, leading him and the administration to walk back the suggestion that Israel dictated the timing of the U.S. operation. President Trump later denied that Israel forced his hand, stating instead that the U.S. was prepared and acted against Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. 

[catfish1957]

So you're suggesting a regular member here commit suicide?

Not good at all.

 

Aww..  come on.  Falling on the sword is as old as the hills allegorically.  Everyone knows what he meant.  Don't go Karen on us,.

[massadvj]

that will eventually lead to our collapse as a "Superpower" over the next couple of decades.  The stakes are that high.

I have heard this argument made many times.

Vietnam was the first time, and it was the justification for the government to draft hundreds of thousands of young men and send them off to fight a lost cause.

Then they said it about Afghanistan and Iraq.  Also lost causes.

At some point, you gotta question the argument.

What makes sense to me is "walk softly and carry a big stick."  Stay the hell out unless provoked.

There was no real provocation for taking out the ayatollah and Iran's military. The window of opportunity presented itself, and Trump took it. Then he found out there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, just as every other president and foreign leader has discovered about Middle East wars.

Now the only justification for staying in is what might happen if we get out. That is no justification.

The Saudis and other Arab states are ready to capitulate, and we are being hung out to dry now that we have done their dirty work.
We have no allies beyond Israel at this point. And the beat goes on. It's Chinatown, Jake.

We are going to eat a very undelicious TACO that should never have been on the table to begin with.

[Timber Rattler]

Everyone knows what he meant.

Is that really true?

[BobfromWB]

I am willing to engage in debate on substance, and always confine my comments accordingly.

You do need a sword then.

[massadvj]

'

Again, neither Iraq or Afghanistan had nuclear weapons. Iran is a totally different - an enemy of the world. Iran wants to kill as many people as possible, which means using nuclear weapons as soon and as often as possible. You are not immune from Iranian nuclear weapons.

We had already buried their nuclear program, and could easily bury it again if they tried to rebuild it. This was an attempt to take out the regime.  It failed.

[massadvj]

This mess isn't Trump's plan. 

He made the call. The circumstances are just window dressing.

[Cyber Liberty]

Possible  progress??  Rubio perhaps is trying to head Trump in the right direction.  We're over there ...  something obviously needs to be done. Either we finish what we started or we lose BIGLY with a huge risk of being nuked by Iran.  U.S. and partners?  Other than Israel, those partners are few and far between.  I believe that is problematic.  Also, I don't believe that Trump wants to risk the lives of U.S. troops that goes completely against his moral fabric.

Live Updates: Rubio says "slight progress" in Iran peace talks, but rejects Strait of Hormuz "tolling system"

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that indirect negotiations over a potential deal to end the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran had seen "a little bit of movement, and that's good."
Rubio has tempered expectations for a peace agreement, however, alluding to unresolved differences over Iran's nuclear enrichment and calling Iranian efforts to "create a tolling system" in the Strait of Hormuz "not acceptable." He said the U.S. and its partners must "have a Plan B" if Iran refuses to reopen the strait.
President Trump said earlier this week that he was willing to wait "a couple of days" for an Iranian response to the latest American offer, but he warned that "we have to get the right answers" to avoid a return to war. ..............

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-us-peace-talks-strait-of-hormuz-control/

There are at least two issues that we cannot, nor have we, changed our position despite what Iran says:  We can't allow Iran to hinder sea traffic in the Persian Gulf in any way, because there are other critical Straits around the world and some Countries would love to use that precedent to start charging their own tolls.

The other issue is, we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.  A number of Countries have them, but they all know using them would be suicidal.  Iran stands alone because they would be OK with that.  They are crazy enough to use them!

[Cyber Liberty]

He made the call. The circumstances are just window dressing.

She's been blaming "Do Joooos" since we took out the nuclear facilities deep underground last year. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

We had already buried their nuclear program, and could easily bury it again if they tried to rebuild it. This was an attempt to take out the regime.  It failed.

Yup.  And this was not Trump's goal.  He didn't want to bog the US down in another forever military action. He wanted to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

[BobfromWB]

We had already buried their nuclear program, and could easily bury it again if they tried to rebuild it. This was an attempt to take out the regime.  It failed.

No we did not bury their nuke program - its an assumption from looking at satellite images, not a ground reality, which can only be discovered by people on the ground - troops. And we do not know if the sites hit were the only sites. Chances are there are more sites buried 2000 feet below ground in impenetrable granite, like their huge missile base on the mountains.

Hitting those sites was not an attempt to take out the regime - where you got that idea, lord knows.

Taking out the regime was Israel's part because 47 was too soft hearted to actually unleash the military to end those evil people.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yup.  And this was not Trump's goal.  He didn't want to bog the US down in another forever military action. He wanted to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Iran unilaterally upped the stakes by trying to control traffic in the Hormuz Strait.  You can't pin that on Netanyahu and Da Joooos.

[Right_in_Virginia]

He made the call. The circumstances are just window dressing.

I agree this was his call, and I disagree with it.  But, our military assessed that a preemptive strike by Israel would turn our ME military bases into retaliatory killing fields.  There isn't a tougher choice for a CiC.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No we did not bury their nuke program -

We "obliterated" it.

[massadvj]

We "obliterated" it.

I never thought I would say this about a RIV post: Great Post. Succinct, ironic, adequately sarcastic and on point. Bravo.

[Bigun]

Bottom line: For so long as this Mullah regime remains in control of Iran we have accomplished exactly nothing.

[Bigun]

I have heard this argument made many times.

Vietnam was the first time, and it was the justification for the government to draft hundreds of thousands of young men and send them off to fight a lost cause.

Then they said it about Afghanistan and Iraq.  Also lost causes.

At some point, you gotta question the argument.

What makes sense to me is "walk softly and carry a big stick."  Stay the hell out unless provoked.

There was no real provocation for taking out the ayatollah and Iran's military. The window of opportunity presented itself, and Trump took it. Then he found out there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, just as every other president and foreign leader has discovered about Middle East wars.

Now the only justification for staying in is what might happen if we get out. That is no justification.

The Saudis and other Arab states are ready to capitulate, and we are being hung out to dry now that we have done their dirty work.
We have no allies beyond Israel at this point. And the beat goes on. It's Chinatown, Jake.

We are going to eat a very undelicious TACO that should never have been on the table to begin with.

Betrayals by our own people do not equal lost causes Victor! @massadvj

[mystery-ak]

Trey Yingst
@TreyYingst
·
12m
UPDATE: A Qatari negotiation team is in Tehran on Friday and Saturday to support the U.S. to reach a final deal that would end the war and address outstanding issues with Iran, an official with knowledge of the visit told Fox News.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Aww..  come on.  Falling on the sword is as old as the hills allegorically.  Everyone knows what he meant.  Don't go Karen on us,.

Not everyone.  The dumb Dems don't know what a hyperbole is either as they do not laugh at Senator Kennedy's comments, which are priceless and should be bound in volumes and read in school classrooms.

That is, after @Wingnut 's book.

[libertybele]

This mess isn't Trump's plan.  After the Netanyahu/Mossad presentation in February, Trump vetoed the regime change war trap and supported targeted killings and diminishment of Iran's military capabilities.  But, Netanyahu forced Trump's hand ---- he; wasn't waiting any longer for the US to defeat Iran.  It was a smart move for Netanyahu, but it trapped Trump.

Blah, Blah,  Blah .  Always, always blaming Bibi.   

Of course this mess is Trump's plan -- he IS the CIC -- he was encourage by Kushner.  Rubio, Hegseth, Cain -- all went along .... the strength from Israel helped.  Just because Bibi decided to make a move did NOT mean that Trump had to follow. 

This is Trump's mess to the point that Bibi has made it clear that  he  wants to be free of relying on the U.S. for both military and monetary support. 

We have a blockade and troops in the area .... Trump has told Bibi  to hold off.... so if anyone is  leading one down a particular path it is Trump and the U.S.

[BobfromWB]

We "obliterated" it.

On paper, rhetoric, & images - no one has looked in person. So until that happens, its just more 47 spin/rhetoric.

[DefiantMassRINO]

October 7, 2023, changed the calculus on Iran.

Destruction of Israel is no longer just rhetorical.  Mass murder / genocide of Jews is no longer just rhetorical.

The Abraham Accords were about to establish a lasting peace among Israel and the Arab Nations of the Middle East when Iran's proxy, Hamas, carried out the worst mass murder of Jews (and Americans) since the Holocaust.

Iran enough oil and natural gas to cover its own domestic consumption, so, Iran does not NEED nuclear power.  Iran WANTS a civilian nuclear program as cover for its miltary and idealogical nuclear ambitions.

[libertybele]

Trey Yingst
@TreyYingst
·
12m
UPDATE: A Qatari negotiation team is in Tehran on Friday and Saturday to support the U.S. to reach a final deal that would end the war and address outstanding issues with Iran, an official with knowledge of the visit told Fox News.

There is no end to this war for the United States without securing the Strait and retrieving the Uranium.  Whether Trump finishes the job he started or he kicks the can down the road those options will always need to be remedied. If we kick the can down the road I am afraid of Iran (if they haven't already) having the capabilities to nuke a city or two in the U.S. 

[libertybele]

Iran unilaterally upped the stakes by trying to control traffic in the Hormuz Strait.  You can't pin that on Netanyahu and Da Joooos.

Exactly!!!!

[Cyber Liberty]

There is no end to this war for the United States without securing the Strait and retrieving the Uranium.  Whether Trump finishes the job he started or he kicks the can down the road those options will always need to be remedied. If we kick the can down the road I am afraid of Iran (if they haven't already) having the capabilities to nuke a city or two in the U.S.

If Trump kicks the can down the road, we are finished as the world's Superpower within a couple decades, because every two-bit thug of a country will know the US can be laid low by tough talk.  We'll go from one Iran to 190 ankle biters looking for their piece of the action.

[mystery-ak]

Qatari negotiation team visits Tehran to help US reach 'final deal' to end the war, official says

A Qatari negotiation team is in Tehran on Friday and Saturday "to support the U.S. to reach a final deal that would end the war and address outstanding issues with Iran," an official with knowledge of the visit told Fox News' Chief Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst.

The development comes after Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that “slight progress” has been made towards a deal with Iran, but vowed that Tehran “can never have a nuclear weapon.”

“On the issue of Iran. The news this morning, I know it's early still in the United States, a little later in the region, in the Middle East, but we await word on those conversations that are ongoing. There's been some slight progress, I don't want to exaggerate it, but there's been a little bit of movement, and that's good,” Rubio said during a visit to Sweden for a meeting of NATO's foreign ministers.
Posted by Greg Norman-Diamond

[mystery-ak]

Iran’s closure of Strait of Hormuz is ‘direct assault’ on global commerce, NATO chief says

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Friday that Iran’s behavior surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is a “direct assault” on freedom of navigation and global commerce.

“Iran continues to attempt to hold the global economy hostage by closing the Strait of Hormuz. This direct assault on freedom of navigation and global commerce impacts us all,” Rutte said after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Helsingborg, Sweden. 

“It is important that countries are coming together around plans to ensure that the Strait can be open for transit, including by moving essential assets to the region,” he continued. “This is another clear reminder of how security challenges are increasingly interconnected and that Allies and partners have a strong interest in working closely and proactively together.”
Posted by Greg Norman-Diamond