Looking into this thread for the first time in about... a week...?
As usual, not much new to see, so one more time:
There will be NO "negotiated settlement" with Iran. Not one they observe and respect.
They are muslims, and worse than that, they're "twelvers".
The only way to STOP them from re-arming and restarting their nuke program is:
1. D-Day style invasion -- will involve many divisions, numerous casualties, and the re-instatement of the draft.
or...
2. The use of one or more nuclear weapons, with carefully chosen targets. Then again, even this may not "stop" them, requiring option 1 anyway.
I challenge any member of the forum to explain to me how acceptable results will be achieved otherwise...
Ah yes. You have solved geopolitics. Why did anyone waste centuries studying diplomacy, deterrence, intelligence, economics, and human behavior when the answer was apparently sitting here all along?
Option one: invade a country of nearly 90 million people, cross mountains and deserts, occupy territory the size of a continent, absorb casualties, trigger regional war, and resurrect the draft.
Option two: use nuclear weapons and hope the radioactive crater inspires a more cooperative attitude.
Brilliant. Truly the elegant simplicity that only comes from reducing a civilization-scale problem to a two-button control panel labeled “Armageddon” and “Armageddon With Paperwork.”
But I will surrender. You win. Let us accept your premise completely.
Iran cannot be deterred. Iran cannot be negotiated with. Iran cannot be pressured. Iran cannot be contained. Because they are “Twelvers,” their religious beliefs supposedly make them uniquely incapable of rational calculation.
Fine.
If that is true, then your solution does not actually solve the problem.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indeed deeply rooted in Iran’s Twelver Shia revolutionary ideology. It was created to protect the Islamic Republic and operates as a military, political, and intelligence force loyal to that system. But even the IRGC is not simply a theological organization floating above reality. It is an institution with leaders, interests, resources, and a desire to preserve power.
That distinction matters.
History is full of ideological enemies who were still capable of calculating costs and consequences.
The Soviet Union was a nuclear-armed communist empire that openly sought the defeat of the United States. We did not invade Moscow. We did not erase it with nuclear weapons. We used deterrence, pressure, alliances, intelligence, and patience.
China under Mao was revolutionary, hostile, and deeply ideological. Yet strategic competition eventually involved something more complicated than “destroy them or surrender.”
Governments, even hostile governments, generally want to survive.
Now let us examine the two magical options presented.
A D-Day style invasion of Iran?
Iran is not Normandy. It is a mountainous nation of nearly 90 million people with cities, a large military, asymmetric capabilities, and regional allies. A military operation might destroy targets. Occupying and transforming the country would be an entirely different matter.
And the nuclear option?
A nuclear weapon does not destroy knowledge. It does not erase scientists. It does not remove ideology. It does not guarantee that the survivors will not rebuild with greater determination.
So the two choices offered are not really solutions.
They are catastrophes with different timelines.
One creates a potentially endless war.
The other creates a historic act of destruction that may only postpone the original problem.
The absurdity is not recognizing that Iran is dangerous. It is pretending that the only alternatives are surrender or apocalypse.
Real strategy exists in the uncomfortable space between those extremes.
Deterrence.
Containment.
Economic pressure.
Intelligence operations.
Diplomatic pressure backed by force.
The willingness to act when necessary without pretending there is a magic button labeled “Make Iran Disappear.”
The world is not divided between total victory and total defeat.
That is the fantasy version of war.
Reality is far messier.
And history has repeatedly shown that the hardest battles are often won not by the person willing to destroy everything, but by the person who understands exactly how much destruction is actually necessary.
