Do they think bombing Iran would have been that easy?

[mystery-ak]

Do they think bombing Iran would have been that easy?

Let's keep talking and hoping that the Iranian people can remove the regime everyone hates so much.

Silvio Canto, Jr. | June 19, 2026

The Trump deal critics are down to two narratives. On one hand, there are those who wish that we had gone the distance and cut the head of the snake for once and for all. On the other hand, there are the Democrats who are simply worthless and more afraid of a primary than Iran having a bomb. Honestly, it's hard to take these Democrats seriously anymore, especially when they are nostalgic about the Obama deal.

The cut the snake's head option is very appealing because no one hates the Iran regime more than I do. What can you say about a regime that paid for terrorists who jumped into a music concert and violated 14-year-old girls? So no love or sympathy for that regime here.

The larger question, and one I would hope that everyone considers, is that if you cut the head of the snake, then you own a country of 90 million people. Our military can do the head cutting really well, but who is going to be there to put it all together? That's my practical concern. Also, don't expect the Europeans to be much help. The President would likely have to go to Congress for an occupation of that magnitude.

So I think the President took the right step by making it difficult to get the infamous weapon and buying some time to let the people bring about regime change. Of course, the military option is there and ready to be used again.

Let's not forget one last point. President Trump walked away in a very strong leadership position. He is "the boss" as Miranda Devine points out:

    Europe can sneer at Donald Trump all it likes, but it’s a supplicant.

    China respects us.

    Canada bows.

    Trump understands power, and it rests easy on his shoulders.

    He joked about it at the G7 in his relaxed American fashion, and European leaders now get it.

    They laughed along, but they understood.

    By the time he had emerged from a glittering dinner at Versailles to fly home, he had signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran that has the great and the good worked up into a symphony of hysterical catastrophizing.

    While they hyperventilate, Trump casually shrugs and says it’s just a framework for negotiations toward a deal, and if it doesn’t work, he’ll just bomb Iran.

    “If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head, OK?” he told the media on the sidelines of the G7.

    What the naysayers don’t understand is that the 14-point memorandum Trump signed is not a deal.

    It’s a political document setting out terms agreed by both sides for negotiating a final deal that would result in Iran agreeing never to produce or procure nuclear weapons, with strict oversight.

    In the meantime, the MOU gets the Strait of Hormuz open and gas prices down before the midterms, easing domestic political constraints on Trump.

    The period of negotiation toward the hoped-for final deal is nominally 60 days, but senior administration officials agree it could take longer -- in other words, until after the midterms.


So I'm on board and will support President Trump for now. I trust his instincts, and his foreign policy record is a good one. Let's keep talking and hoping that the Iranian people can remove the regime everyone hates so much. Based on conversations with Iranians here, I am confident that change will come.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/06/do_they_think_bombing_iran_would_have_been_that_easy.html

[BobfromWB]

Do they think bombing Iran would have been that easy?

Let's keep talking and hoping that the Iranian people can remove the regime everyone hates so much.

Silvio Canto, Jr. | June 19, 2026

The Trump deal critics are down to two narratives. On one hand, there are those who wish that we had gone the distance and cut the head of the snake for once and for all. On the other hand, there are the Democrats who are simply worthless and more afraid of a primary than Iran having a bomb. Honestly, it's hard to take these Democrats seriously anymore, especially when they are nostalgic about the Obama deal.

The cut the snake's head option is very appealing because no one hates the Iran regime more than I do. What can you say about a regime that paid for terrorists who jumped into a music concert and violated 14-year-old girls? So no love or sympathy for that regime here.

The larger question, and one I would hope that everyone considers, is that if you cut the head of the snake, then you own a country of 90 million people. Our military can do the head cutting really well, but who is going to be there to put it all together? That's my practical concern. Also, don't expect the Europeans to be much help. The President would likely have to go to Congress for an occupation of that magnitude.

So I think the President took the right step by making it difficult to get the infamous weapon and buying some time to let the people bring about regime change. Of course, the military option is there and ready to be used again.

Let's not forget one last point. President Trump walked away in a very strong leadership position. He is "the boss" as Miranda Devine points out:

    Europe can sneer at Donald Trump all it likes, but it’s a supplicant.

    China respects us.

    Canada bows.

    Trump understands power, and it rests easy on his shoulders.

    He joked about it at the G7 in his relaxed American fashion, and European leaders now get it.

    They laughed along, but they understood.

    By the time he had emerged from a glittering dinner at Versailles to fly home, he had signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran that has the great and the good worked up into a symphony of hysterical catastrophizing.

    While they hyperventilate, Trump casually shrugs and says it’s just a framework for negotiations toward a deal, and if it doesn’t work, he’ll just bomb Iran.

    “If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head, OK?” he told the media on the sidelines of the G7.

    What the naysayers don’t understand is that the 14-point memorandum Trump signed is not a deal.

    It’s a political document setting out terms agreed by both sides for negotiating a final deal that would result in Iran agreeing never to produce or procure nuclear weapons, with strict oversight.

    In the meantime, the MOU gets the Strait of Hormuz open and gas prices down before the midterms, easing domestic political constraints on Trump.

    The period of negotiation toward the hoped-for final deal is nominally 60 days, but senior administration officials agree it could take longer -- in other words, until after the midterms.


So I'm on board and will support President Trump for now. I trust his instincts, and his foreign policy record is a good one. Let's keep talking and hoping that the Iranian people can remove the regime everyone hates so much. Based on conversations with Iranians here, I am confident that change will come.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/06/do_they_think_bombing_iran_would_have_been_that_easy.html

Breaking News for 47's consumption:

Bombing will not work.

Grow stones and make the tough decision: use troops to end the scourge. You are faced with a more powerful enemy than Hitler's Germany. Wake up!!! And stop repeating, step by step, all the actions that lead to WWII! You are creating all the conditions that will lead to WWIII.

For the love of God, stop reading your own press releases! Stop reading the polls you claim you do not read.

Before the US entered WWII, Americans were steadfastly against entering the conflict in Europe, but FDR and Eisenhower had stones and in we went. FDR did not get voted out of office, despite the 100s of thousands of US troop deaths, Congress did not flip. People respected their leader's decisions & stood behind them.

[Wingnut]

Breaking News for 47's consumption:

Bombing will not work.

Grow stones and make the tough decision: use troops to end the scourge. You are faced with a more powerful enemy than Hitler's Germany. Wake up!!! And stop repeating, step by step, all the actions that lead to WWII! You are creating all the conditions that will lead to WWIII.

For the love of God, stop reading your own press releases! Stop reading the polls you claim you do not read.

Before the US entered WWII, Americans were steadfastly against entering the conflict in Europe, but FDR and Eisenhower had stones and in we went. FDR did not get voted out of office, despite the 100s of thousands of US troop deaths, Congress did not flip. People respected their leader's decisions & stood behind them.

I love our resident Arm Chair Generals. 

[DefiantMassRINO]

The efficacy of strategic bombing - without ground action - is always over-rated.  Bombing alone did not defeat Germany.  Bombing alone did not defeat Japan.  Bombing didn't win the Vietnam War.

Politicians gravitate towards bombing, alone, because it is a lower risk strategy, but that also means it's lower return.

Bombing can degrade, but not defeat.  Ultimately, ground action is required to deny the enemy the resources it needs to continue fighting the conflict.

The mullahs and the IRGC need to be defeated from within by campaign(s) of insurgency, sabotage, extortion, corruption, misinformation, economic instability, etc.  The Iranians need to fight amongst themselves in a civil war.

[Wingnut]

Bombing did end one war. It was two big beautiful bomb drops in fact.   Might be what we need to drop on Iran.  They would do it to us if they could dontcha know.

[DefiantMassRINO]

@Wingnut,

I disagree.  It was the Soviets' August 9, 1945, invasion of Manchoukuo, and the rapid collapse of Japanese forces that finally pushed the Japanese to surrender.

If you were Japan, who would you prefer to surrender to - MacArthur, or Stalin?

The nukes were the hammer, and the Soviets were the anvil.

 

[BobfromWB]

I love our resident Arm Chair Generals.

I love those residents that do not read history ... 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Bombing did end one war. It was two big beautiful bomb drops in fact.   Might be what we need to drop on Iran.  They would do it to us if they could dontcha know.

And General Curtis LeMay almost destroyed all of Japan's weapon manufacturing as he decimated Tokyo and other sites with bombing runs so lethal they killed more people than those two nuclear bombs.

Bombing alone can completely cripple Iran's income producing sources thereby isolating them.

There would be nothing on Kharg Island left, and the country would have no major roads, no bridges, no railroad tracks, no usuable port remaining.

If Iran has no export capability and no income, it will shrivel to nothing as it cannot feed itself and survive as a country.

[Hoodat]

The primary difference between the two is that the Iranian people want to overthrow their government.  The Japanese did not.