|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future?
1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over.
2: all weapons manufacturing blown up
3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys
4: no more airforce or navy
I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing.
|
On March 01 2026 12:42 KwarK wrote:
Blowing things up without building anything rarely makes things better but I think people confused by the strategy here are presuming an intent to make things better that just doesn’t exist.
Thank you. I feel like I've been having a hard time explaining this part. Trump and his people wouldn't mind if half of Iran died tomorrow. Truly just water under the bridge to them. They are the definition of evil, through and through.
Here is Trump's decision making regarding Iran:
1: To what extent can I increase the price of my Venezuelan oil?
2: Wait I can just take the Iran dude out lol
3: If we do this, they'll fire a bunch of missiles at us, so we may as well just let it rip
4: Let me know when we finish and how much of a price increase we expect. Just make sure they don't have the capability to retaliate by the time you leave.
|
On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing.
I don’t know how dependent on nuclear energy Iran is, but it’s worth noting that while power grids are one of the easier things to take offline with bombing campaigns, they are also, like schools and hospitals, targets which hurt the civilian populace far more than the regime. Whatever they want to prioritize they can give power to on-site, it’s less efficient but they can manage. Civilians don’t have that power. I question the wisdom of blowing up power generation, especially when your motivation seems to be thinking that allowing them nuclear reactors makes building nuclear weapons significantly easier (which I don’t think it does?).
Any factory can be a weapons factory. Assuming you can tell which ones are currently weapons factories and only destroy those, they’ll just retool other ones to be weapons factories, no? Or you can plan to detonate *all* their industrial capacity. What do you think the humanitarian impact of that would be?
How exactly do you bomb “the entire organization?” We’ve done massive bombing campaigns before alongside full-scale invasions and had great difficulty rooting out their organizations. If we couldn’t do it with 100,000 troops on the ground, how are we supposed to do it with satellite pictures and bombing sorties?
|
On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing.
After that one of the neighbors just walks in and grabs all the free estate they can. Unless you want to now use your own forces to defend a very big country (17th biggest country to be exact) half across the globe?
|
If not neighbours, then just a bunch of others get the idea that they can create a new country. Maybe some splinter group of Taleban that thinks they are not harsh enough.
|
On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. Pretty sure that is how you get ISIS.
But that is entirely what Netayahu wants, to turn Iran into a failed state that can be exploited for conflict whenever it is convenient.
|
On March 01 2026 13:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. I don’t know how dependent on nuclear energy Iran is, but it’s worth noting that while power grids are one of the easier things to take offline with bombing campaigns, they are also, like schools and hospitals, targets which hurt the civilian populace far more than the regime. Whatever they want to prioritize they can give power to on-site, it’s less efficient but they can manage. Civilians don’t have that power. I question the wisdom of blowing up power generation, especially when your motivation seems to be thinking that allowing them nuclear reactors makes building nuclear weapons significantly easier (which I don’t think it does?). Any factory can be a weapons factory. Assuming you can tell which ones are currently weapons factories and only destroy those, they’ll just retool other ones to be weapons factories, no? Or you can plan to detonate *all* their industrial capacity. What do you think the humanitarian impact of that would be? How exactly do you bomb “the entire organization?” We’ve done massive bombing campaigns before alongside full-scale invasions and had great difficulty rooting out their organizations. If we couldn’t do it with 100,000 troops on the ground, how are we supposed to do it with satellite pictures and bombing sorties?
Weapon factories are specialised factories. You can't just replace them with any other factory. They're high value targets. It's why Iran has placed many ballistic missile factories underground.
|
On March 01 2026 13:45 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. After that one of the neighbors just walks in and grabs all the free estate they can. Unless you want to now use your own forces to defend a very big country (17th biggest country to be exact) half across the globe?
Continuing the discussion from the point of view of wanting to make it worse in Iran so they have less power to project. Mission successful.
More likely outcome. Central power gets weaker and you get Taliban, ISIS analogs to open up doors there. Regime is still not going to be good for the US but they are now in a civil war and thus not financing terrorist groups abroad.
On March 01 2026 16:47 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 13:33 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. I don’t know how dependent on nuclear energy Iran is, but it’s worth noting that while power grids are one of the easier things to take offline with bombing campaigns, they are also, like schools and hospitals, targets which hurt the civilian populace far more than the regime. Whatever they want to prioritize they can give power to on-site, it’s less efficient but they can manage. Civilians don’t have that power. I question the wisdom of blowing up power generation, especially when your motivation seems to be thinking that allowing them nuclear reactors makes building nuclear weapons significantly easier (which I don’t think it does?). Any factory can be a weapons factory. Assuming you can tell which ones are currently weapons factories and only destroy those, they’ll just retool other ones to be weapons factories, no? Or you can plan to detonate *all* their industrial capacity. What do you think the humanitarian impact of that would be? How exactly do you bomb “the entire organization?” We’ve done massive bombing campaigns before alongside full-scale invasions and had great difficulty rooting out their organizations. If we couldn’t do it with 100,000 troops on the ground, how are we supposed to do it with satellite pictures and bombing sorties? Weapon factories are specialised factories. You can't just replace them with any other factory. They're high value targets. It's why Iran has placed many ballistic missile factories underground.
Depends on where in the value chain you are. A missile is propellant, explosive, electronics and metal sheets. Chemical plants can after retooling likely do variants of first two. Electronics are already imported much of the time so can be ignored. Metal sheets are "easy" to do, tolerances might suffer a thus accuracy/range.
Then you have an assembly plant that isn't anything special.
|
It looks like the attacks on Iran by Trump and Israel are further destabilizing the region and jeopardizing our allies and nearby neutral parties:
Iran Vows to Avenge Leader’s Death as Strikes Continue
U.S. and Israeli attacks entered a second day as Iran’s surviving leadership said the old guard would remain in control.
The Iranian government vowed on Sunday that it would retaliate for the attacks that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s longtime supreme leader and an implacable enemy of Israel and the United States, as attacks on the country entered a second day. ...
The killing is a seismic political shift that raises the prospect of chaos and a power vacuum in an already turbulent region. ...
In Israel, where the authorities reported one death on Sunday, air-raid sirens warned of further Iranian missile launches. Iran fired waves of ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the initial strikes. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait — all of which host U.S. military bases — said they had come under attack, as did Jordan. ...
Analysts have warned that the fighting could potentially draw the United States into a protracted conflict with no clear exit. Iran’s leadership oversees extensive military abilities and a network of regional proxy forces that could help sustain a resistance. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/01/world/iran-attack-khamenei-trump
|
On March 01 2026 13:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. I don’t know how dependent on nuclear energy Iran is, but it’s worth noting that while power grids are one of the easier things to take offline with bombing campaigns, they are also, like schools and hospitals, targets which hurt the civilian populace far more than the regime. Whatever they want to prioritize they can give power to on-site, it’s less efficient but they can manage. Civilians don’t have that power. I question the wisdom of blowing up power generation, especially when your motivation seems to be thinking that allowing them nuclear reactors makes building nuclear weapons significantly easier (which I don’t think it does?).
Iran has all of one nuclear power plant which, while it as of now remains un-blown up, wouldn't be a crippling loss to civilians.
On March 01 2026 04:05 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 03:18 Uldridge wrote:
The easiest rebuttal to these tweets of his is that context changes and that what was true 10 years ago isn't necessarily the case today.
In any case, I don't really see the immediate reason to attack Iran but I also don't have the entire intelligence apparatus from (one of) the strongest country at my disposal. The Iran attacks are so hard to analyze because in a vacuum weakening a awful repressive colonial dictatorship that was horrendous to its own people (10,000 killed recently among other crimes against humanity. As well as crimes and destabilization outside its border. Sadly every time even competent leadership try's this it works outs terribly long term. And the timing is so questionable. If this was the plan why not do it doing the uprising? Maybe you would have actually accomplished a Iranian revolution had you done it then.
This was not "the plan" all along. Otherwise "why not do it a year ago February, 2025" would be just as easily phrased as a valid question.
This became the plan probably singly AFTER the January massacres. Decapitating a government is obviously a contingency. Trump wanted negotiations to lead to a deal but at some point it takes two to tango. Everyone except John Bolton would rather not have to go down the path of blowing up Iran/the Ayatollahs. Including the Ayatollahs themselves. But like most strongmen they appear after a while to have started to drink their own Kool-Aid when it comes to estimating their chances and evaluating their own strength. The other key for this timing is they waited until they were literally in a security meeting all together to strike that.
Despite having military assets all around the world, the US isn't 24/7 ready for PERFECT action in any problem nation at the drop of the hat. When the US does intervene nowadays, the public suspicion of war is so high and the tolerance for anything going wrong so low that you have to execute it with at least like 2 orders of magnitude superiority. 100 to 1. The US has that but not necessarily locally everywhere at all times.
Think like the First Gulf War, it took months to get half a million troops over there ready. Now imagine a world where a single boot on the ground is political kryptonite, then you have to do everything from the air and sea. Okay. How many problem areas are there? Maybe the Middle East, South America, and East Asia. They aren't quite equal, like East Asia is both China (esp. securing Taiwan) and North Korea, either of which by itself probably needs more watching than the whole of South America. So okay, divide the US navy into those 3 parts, plus a part to secure world sealanes generally, plus a fifth rotated out/in port. Can 20% of the US navy at the drop of a hat deliver overwhelming air/sea destruction to China, North Korea, or Iran? Realistically, no. Not at the margins you need. In all cases it will "win" anyway (except China/Russia which are special). But "winning" isn't enough. What it can do is sit there as deterrence and promise overwhelming destruction, but without support and intelligence and an exact plan and buildup, it can't promise near-perfection. tl;dr: Basically the finger of god needs a bit of time to flex its knuckles.
In this case what that prep looked like was adding the carrier USS Ford, flying a bunch of tankers from Europe last week or something for refueling, and positioning hundreds of aircraft at bases (not just carrier aircraft) so that the whole picture comes to 900+ strikes in the first 12 hours of this campaign.
At issue was not apparently the moon phases interfering with stealth strikes as some had speculated. The timing is literally just to be ready enough to do it correctly.
|
Unsurprisingly, Trump has been caught repeatedly lying about his justification for bombing Iran. Don't forget that he's doing this only to distract everyone from the Epstein files and the fact that we know he's a child molester (as if his supporters would even care).
Trump said the U.S. sought to make a deal with Iran after bombing three of its nuclear sites in June 2025, but Iran "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore." "Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland," Trump said.
Trump's statement is contradicted by a 2025 federal government assessment that said Iran is years away from the ability to produce long-range missiles; nuclear policy experts also cast doubt on the idea. ... The Defense Intelligence Agency released a missile threat assessment in May 2025 that said Iran could develop a long-range missile by 2035 if it chooses to pursue it. ...
Iran seems focused on short- and medium-range missiles, with a top range of 2,000 kilometers, said Gary Samore, a Brandeis University professor who worked on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Obama and Clinton administrations. The distance from Tehran to Washington, D.C., is about 10,000 kilometers.
In assessing Trump's justification for Iranian strikes, The New York Times cited three unnamed American officials with access to intelligence about Iran's missile programs who said Trump exaggerated the immediacy of the threat to the U.S. Other outlets including CNN and Reuters had similar reporting. ...
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which tracks Iran's nuclear program, has been unable to access the sites the U.S. bombed. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, which had allowed monitoring of the country's nuclear program. This means experts lack confirmed, independent information about the status of Iran's efforts. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-statements-made-by-trump-to-justify-u-s-strikes-on-iran
I especially love how Trump pretended like he tried to make a deal with Iran after he previously pulled out of a deal with Iran, and how his own agencies are refuting what he's saying about Iran's nuclear timeline.
|
On March 01 2026 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I especially love how Trump pretended like he tried to make a deal with Iran after he previously pulled out of a deal with Iran, and how his own agencies are refuting what he's saying about Iran's nuclear timeline.
Ah but you see that was a deal made by a Democrat, so it was by default bad.
|
United States43987 Posts
If he didn’t intend a war then why did he write a confession stating that he wasn’t interested in peace anymore and mail it to Norway.
|
On March 01 2026 16:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. Pretty sure that is how you get ISIS. But that is entirely what Netayahu wants, to turn Iran into a failed state that can be exploited for conflict whenever it is convenient.
Exactly, I agree. This is all very predictable and very easy to force in Israel and the US’s direction.
|
On March 01 2026 23:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 16:15 Gorsameth wrote:On March 01 2026 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2026 10:27 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 10:20 Mohdoo wrote:
As soon as Iran is kneecapped enough, Israel will be able to keep Iran down forever. Iran does not need to be converted into some kind of western utopia. The minimum change needed is just for Iran to not be a problem. I think Trump and his goons plan to treat Iran similar to Venezuela. Doesn't really matter if its some sort of big government change under the western umbrella. As long as they bend the knee and can't cause a fuss, job is done.
And honestly, I think this is way better for everyone involved. We do not want Iraq 2.0. The modern political climate does not allow for stuff like Germany/Japan. It is probably no longer possible for an entire culture to be restructured to be compatible with the winners of a war. What does “cause a fuss” mean in this context? Stop supplying the Houthis? That seems, uh, pretty distant as an objective. To my limited military understanding Iran is not and has never been a power capable of outright conquering Israel – maybe as part of a coalition – but regarding “state sponsors of terror” stuff, what about the current intervention would make them any less likely to do that in the future? 1: Completely wipe out all nuclear infrastructure. Even stuff for nuclear power. Any nuclear energy can be supplied by international partners. But absolutely nothing Iran has any power over. 2: all weapons manufacturing blown up 3: entire IRGC organization killed until it’s just lackeys 4: no more airforce or navy I think after that, it doesn’t really matter what Iran feels like doing. Pretty sure that is how you get ISIS. But that is entirely what Netayahu wants, to turn Iran into a failed state that can be exploited for conflict whenever it is convenient. Exactly, I agree. This is all very predictable and very easy to force in Israel and the US’s direction.
That‘s one way to expand the gaza strip when there‘s nothing left to bomb there.
Haven‘t looked at weapon industry stonks but I‘d bet a few politicians made a load of money all of a sudden. Conflicts of interest be damned.
Yeah LHM did quite a jump.
|
|
|
On March 01 2026 09:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 09:02 Ze'ev wrote:
Just keep kill every damn political and military leader until the regime collapses for lack of authority and organizational capacity. Whack a mole. Theoretically this works, right? Your issue is with the government, not the people, so with smart enough targeting you should be able to force surrender without invading, right? Trouble is, if you think about everybody in a country and rank them in descending order of how much their death would contribute to regime change, and then rank them in descending order of how much ability/resources they have to avoid being hit by foreign bombs, you’re likely to find the two lists look pretty similar. Blowing up schools and hospitals is a lot easier than blowing up command and control points or secret bunkers. Occasionally you get lucky and take out a high-ranking general or politician but modern states are extraordinarily resilient to having a handful of leading officials evaporate here or there. And as long as your goal is regime change, no matter who you kill, whoever takes their place is not incentivized to give you what you want. We first started bragging about “smart bombs” in the 90s, said they were gonna revolutionize our ability to do targeted bombings. Then we spent the rest of the decade bombing Iraq periodically. That was pretty effective at, for instance, keeping large sections of the country without power indefinitely, but never threatened to approach regime change. Only invading did that. I hesitate to focus exclusively on the efficacy criticism here – we should always keep in mind the massive humanitarian costs of civilian bombings that make them immoral. That would be true even if they *were* somewhat effective at achieving military objectives. But I think it’s also worth emphasizing the pointlessness of it.
I agree on much of your analysis on this topic. But one factor you tend to be drastically underestimating, or even missing is how much the supreme leader and IGRC are hated. It was only a few weeks ago that there was massive protests against them and 10000 ish civilians died at their hands. There is like 95% (maybe 99%) happy that all those high ups died. If a bunch of civilians start dying in the conflict that could change. But so far it looks like the Americans and Israelis are valueing Iranian life a lot more than the IGRC ever has.
|
How does the city vs countryside split in Iran look like? Or the educated vs the uneducated? We know educated city people hate the regime. Does the same apply to the farmers etc?
|
On March 02 2026 02:45 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2026 09:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 09:02 Ze'ev wrote:
Just keep kill every damn political and military leader until the regime collapses for lack of authority and organizational capacity. Whack a mole. Theoretically this works, right? Your issue is with the government, not the people, so with smart enough targeting you should be able to force surrender without invading, right? Trouble is, if you think about everybody in a country and rank them in descending order of how much their death would contribute to regime change, and then rank them in descending order of how much ability/resources they have to avoid being hit by foreign bombs, you’re likely to find the two lists look pretty similar. Blowing up schools and hospitals is a lot easier than blowing up command and control points or secret bunkers. Occasionally you get lucky and take out a high-ranking general or politician but modern states are extraordinarily resilient to having a handful of leading officials evaporate here or there. And as long as your goal is regime change, no matter who you kill, whoever takes their place is not incentivized to give you what you want. We first started bragging about “smart bombs” in the 90s, said they were gonna revolutionize our ability to do targeted bombings. Then we spent the rest of the decade bombing Iraq periodically. That was pretty effective at, for instance, keeping large sections of the country without power indefinitely, but never threatened to approach regime change. Only invading did that. I hesitate to focus exclusively on the efficacy criticism here – we should always keep in mind the massive humanitarian costs of civilian bombings that make them immoral. That would be true even if they *were* somewhat effective at achieving military objectives. But I think it’s also worth emphasizing the pointlessness of it. I agree on much of your analysis on this topic. But one factor you tend to be drastically underestimating, or even missing is how much the supreme leader and IGRC are hated. It was only a few weeks ago that there was massive protests against them and 10000 ish civilians died at their hands. There is like 95% (maybe 99%) happy that all those high ups died. If a bunch of civilians start dying in the conflict that could change. But so far it looks like the Americans and Israelis are valueing Iranian life a lot more than the IGRC ever has.
That’s fine, I have no expert knowledge of Iranian public opinion but I’m sure you’re right (except your last sentence, that’s silly). But I don’t think it’s hard to understand why getting massacred by your own government doesn’t become any less shitty if you’re also getting bombed by Americans.
Iranians have had a pretty rough time for the last century, generally either at the hand of their own government or (directly or indirectly) at the hand of Americans. In the most horrific moments in their recent history, no positive outcome was possible because the Americans wouldn’t allow it. I sincerely hope they find a more humane system in my lifetime but American bombs are an impediment to that outcome, not an assist.
|
On March 02 2026 03:57 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2026 02:45 Billyboy wrote:On March 01 2026 09:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 09:02 Ze'ev wrote:
Just keep kill every damn political and military leader until the regime collapses for lack of authority and organizational capacity. Whack a mole. Theoretically this works, right? Your issue is with the government, not the people, so with smart enough targeting you should be able to force surrender without invading, right? Trouble is, if you think about everybody in a country and rank them in descending order of how much their death would contribute to regime change, and then rank them in descending order of how much ability/resources they have to avoid being hit by foreign bombs, you’re likely to find the two lists look pretty similar. Blowing up schools and hospitals is a lot easier than blowing up command and control points or secret bunkers. Occasionally you get lucky and take out a high-ranking general or politician but modern states are extraordinarily resilient to having a handful of leading officials evaporate here or there. And as long as your goal is regime change, no matter who you kill, whoever takes their place is not incentivized to give you what you want. We first started bragging about “smart bombs” in the 90s, said they were gonna revolutionize our ability to do targeted bombings. Then we spent the rest of the decade bombing Iraq periodically. That was pretty effective at, for instance, keeping large sections of the country without power indefinitely, but never threatened to approach regime change. Only invading did that. I hesitate to focus exclusively on the efficacy criticism here – we should always keep in mind the massive humanitarian costs of civilian bombings that make them immoral. That would be true even if they *were* somewhat effective at achieving military objectives. But I think it’s also worth emphasizing the pointlessness of it. I agree on much of your analysis on this topic. But one factor you tend to be drastically underestimating, or even missing is how much the supreme leader and IGRC are hated. It was only a few weeks ago that there was massive protests against them and 10000 ish civilians died at their hands. There is like 95% (maybe 99%) happy that all those high ups died. If a bunch of civilians start dying in the conflict that could change. But so far it looks like the Americans and Israelis are valueing Iranian life a lot more than the IGRC ever has. That’s fine, I have no expert knowledge of Iranian public opinion but I’m sure you’re right ( except your last sentence, that’s silly). But I don’t think it’s hard to understand why getting massacred by your own government doesn’t become any less shitty if you’re also getting bombed by Americans. Iranians have had a pretty rough time for the last century, generally either at the hand of their own government or (directly or indirectly) at the hand of Americans. In the most horrific moments in their recent history, no positive outcome was possible because the Americans wouldn’t allow it. I sincerely hope they find a more humane system in my lifetime but American bombs are an impediment to that outcome, not an assist.
Sadly it is true, not because the US and Israel care so much, but because of how awful the Iranian gov is. You are vastly under estimating how many civilians the Iranian kills, tortures, locks away for any number of "crimes". There is a reason so many refugees were cheering about this.
Your last sentence may be true, or may not be. I certainly do not know. But it is a ignorant take to think you with such little knowledge know so much more than Iranian refugees. At some point being a little more thoughtful than America and Israel are always the bad guys is useful. Especially when there are plenty of bad guys in the world.
It is not hard to look up how awful this regime is, and how awful the regimes it has supported externally are. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that you trust that can go into detail. I also think the 30000 people that died protesting would have loved these airstikes to have happened earlier, when promised.
Every Iranian civilian death is a tragedy, every IGRC member, and political member dead is a victory.
On March 02 2026 03:33 Yurie wrote:
How does the city vs countryside split in Iran look like? Or the educated vs the uneducated? We know educated city people hate the regime. Does the same apply to the farmers etc?
They are 75% urban. The popularity is hard to determine in the sense they don't do polling because if you said anything not extremely positive you be put in jail or killed. But the massive protests where they knew a bunch of people were going to get gunned down a disappeared suggests extreme unpopularity. If you trust those who have left, the only ones who support the government are those in it and directly benefiting which is a super small percentage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
