K2-HMFIC said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Only if China acts pretty much immediately

---

Munitions consumption is the bigger issue…depending on scale, replacing expenditures could be in the years.

(Looks at calendar year 2027)

---

We've been ramping up production of a lot of stuff, and there's only some stuff that would be directly impacted by both scenarios like TLAM's and patriots. Taiwan would be more air to air and anti ship than air to ground like Iran

---

Ehhh…TLAM, Patriots, THAAD, JASSM are all high high demand for both conflicts and we don't have enough SRM production in place yet.

AMPAC just started expansion on ammonium perchlorate…and that's for CURRENT demand.

Adding Iranian consumption rates to the mix means we just get deeper in the hole.

---

If Iran's air defense is neutralized as fast as it was last time, we won't need a ton of higher end stuff like JASSM. We can use JDAM, etc that likely wouldn't be of as much use against China.

Let's see how it plays out. It's not a definite "binary choice" like you claimed.

GAC06 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Only if China acts pretty much immediately

---

Munitions consumption is the bigger issue…depending on scale, replacing expenditures could be in the years.

(Looks at calendar year 2027)

---

We've been ramping up production of a lot of stuff, and there's only some stuff that would be directly impacted by both scenarios like TLAM's and patriots. Taiwan would be more air to air and anti ship than air to ground like Iran

---

Ehhh…TLAM, Patriots, THAAD, JASSM are all high high demand for both conflicts and we don't have enough SRM production in place yet.

AMPAC just started expansion on ammonium perchlorate…and that's for CURRENT demand.

Adding Iranian consumption rates to the mix means we just get deeper in the hole.

---

If Iran's air defense is neutralized as fast as it was last time, we won't need a ton of higher end stuff like JASSM. We can use JDAM, etc that likely wouldn't be of as much use against China.

Let's see how it plays out. It's not a definite "binary choice" like you claimed.

---

We will see…but operators tend to be very liberal with their munitions allocations and given historical trends we will likely blow thru preferred stocks very quickly.

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

lol. It's not a "deal" when nobody follows the rules of said "deal".

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

lol. It's not a "deal" when nobody follows the rules of said "deal".

---

Everyone was following the rules. Trump ostensibly did not like that the deal had a timeline (10 years).

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

Keyno said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

lol. It's not a "deal" when nobody follows the rules of said "deal".

---

Everyone was following the rules. Trump ostensibly did not like that the deal had a timeline (10 years).

---

hahahahahahaha, yes, and barry bonds never took steroids.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

lol. It's not a "deal" when nobody follows the rules of said "deal".

---

Everyone was following the rules. Trump ostensibly did not like that the deal had a timeline (10 years).

---

hahahahahahaha, yes, and barry bonds never took steroids.

---

I know it's a hard pill to swallow for some, but the JCPOA was a stable deal. Everyone was following the rules and everyone was happy- except Israel

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

The build up to OIF was a year of preparations, mobilization, and shipping and staging ground forces. That's not happening here.

If we never go into Iran, we won't be stuck in Iran. The future downside isn't Iraq, it's more like Libya

GAC06 said:

---

The build up to OIF was a year of preparations, mobilization, and shipping and staging ground forces. That's not happening here.

---

Yeah it looks like we are gonna start with the "Syria method" (airstrikes and arming terrorist insurgents).

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

Apples =/= oranges

They really are not even close to similar scenarios. In any form. From international involvement/support, to local sentiment, to existing power structures, to the goals of the current congress and sitting administration. Maybe in casus belli on our side but the effects once zero hours hits I posit will be drastically different.

If anything, our "lessons" such as they are, from GWOT is what will prevent a GWOT 2.0 in Iran IMO.

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Doesn't mean squat. Israel already absolutely spanked the ever loving **** out of them without losing a single asset in one of the most lopsided military operations in history.

Use your head. How did we lose GWOT? It had nothing to do with tech. It was our dumbass congress wanting to nation build and then hamstringing our military in every which way possible by turning us into little more than police. Do you know what the tangible, clear, and feasible goal of that war was year after year after year post 2006? If you do, please let me know.

I am confident we are NOT going to be stuck nation building in Iran. That is what our war really was and why we got mired in it for so long. That is the difference you can't seem to understand.

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Doesn't mean squat. Israel already absolutely spanked the ever loving **** out of them without losing a single asset in one of the most lopsided military operations in history.

Use your head. How did we lose GWOT? It had nothing to do with tech. It was our dumbass congress wanting to nation build and then hamstringing our military in every which way possible by turning us into little more than police. Do you know what the tangible, clear, and feasible goal of that war was year after year after year post 2006? If you do, please let me know.

I am confident we are NOT going to be stuck nation building in Iran. That is what our war really was and why we got mired in it for so long. That is the difference you can't seem to understand.

---

OK then. I guess we are gonna do another regime change war. But this time it will go smoothly

(some people literally never learn)

Oh? You mean it's not all just Trump being stubborn?

you don't say!

BREAKING:

The EU just officially terror-listed the IRGC pic.twitter.com/AOSWml3jch

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 19, 2026

Quote:

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq.

---

Fun fact. Iran is larger than the state of Texas but not as big as Alaska.

There have been large movements of cargo aircraft, tankers, and fighter jets to Europe over the past week to 10 days. Mildenhall and Lakenheath in England are two staging points for these aircraft.

Something is about to happen somewhere and it well could be decisive.

Keyno said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Doesn't mean squat. Israel already absolutely spanked the ever loving **** out of them without losing a single asset in one of the most lopsided military operations in history.

Use your head. How did we lose GWOT? It had nothing to do with tech. It was our dumbass congress wanting to nation build and then hamstringing our military in every which way possible by turning us into little more than police. Do you know what the tangible, clear, and feasible goal of that war was year after year after year post 2006? If you do, please let me know.

I am confident we are NOT going to be stuck nation building in Iran. That is what our war really was and why we got mired in it for so long. That is the difference you can't seem to understand.

---

OK then. I guess we are gonna do another regime change war. But this time it will go smoothly

(some people literally never learn)

---

Oh quit being petulant. It's unbecoming. My point is, not every war is the same. History proves this. Not every leader is the same. History proves this. Trump is too spastic to be drawn into such a conflict. Iraq was owned by Congress. Any potential conflict with Iran will already be contentious enough that there is no way they will allow to grow into such a mess as GWOT. Their livelihoods would depend on it and nothing stands between a congresscritter and their hold on power.

It's ok to accept differing ideas in discussions. You have done absolutely nothing to dispute any counters to what you assert as fact except allude to some notion that it HAS to go the same way as before because....reasons?

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Doesn't mean squat. Israel already absolutely spanked the ever loving **** out of them without losing a single asset in one of the most lopsided military operations in history.

Use your head. How did we lose GWOT? It had nothing to do with tech. It was our dumbass congress wanting to nation build and then hamstringing our military in every which way possible by turning us into little more than police. Do you know what the tangible, clear, and feasible goal of that war was year after year after year post 2006? If you do, please let me know.

I am confident we are NOT going to be stuck nation building in Iran. That is what our war really was and why we got mired in it for so long. That is the difference you can't seem to understand.

---

OK then. I guess we are gonna do another regime change war. But this time it will go smoothly

(some people literally never learn)

---

Oh quit being petulant. It's unbecoming. My point is, not every war is the same. History proves this. Not every leader is the same. History proves this. Trump is too spastic to be drawn into such a conflict. Iraq was owned by Congress. Any potential conflict with Iran will already be contentious enough that there is no way they will allow to grow into such a mess as GWOT. Their livelihoods would depend on it and nothing stands between a congresscritter and their hold on power.

It's ok to accept differing ideas in discussions. You have done absolutely nothing to dispute any counters to what you assert as fact except allude to some notion that it HAS to go the same way as before because....reasons?

---

Uh bro I agreed with you. We are gonna do a regime change war. Or are you asking me if we should. Because I would say no and I would cite the Forever War thats been going on since 2003 as evidence.

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Doesn't mean squat. Israel already absolutely spanked the ever loving **** out of them without losing a single asset in one of the most lopsided military operations in history.

Use your head. How did we lose GWOT? It had nothing to do with tech. It was our dumbass congress wanting to nation build and then hamstringing our military in every which way possible by turning us into little more than police. Do you know what the tangible, clear, and feasible goal of that war was year after year after year post 2006? If you do, please let me know.

I am confident we are NOT going to be stuck nation building in Iran. That is what our war really was and why we got mired in it for so long. That is the difference you can't seem to understand.

---

OK then. I guess we are gonna do another regime change war. But this time it will go smoothly

(some people literally never learn)

---

Oh quit being petulant. It's unbecoming. My point is, not every war is the same. History proves this. Not every leader is the same. History proves this. Trump is too spastic to be drawn into such a conflict. Iraq was owned by Congress. Any potential conflict with Iran will already be contentious enough that there is no way they will allow to grow into such a mess as GWOT. Their livelihoods would depend on it and nothing stands between a congresscritter and their hold on power.

It's ok to accept differing ideas in discussions. You have done absolutely nothing to dispute any counters to what you assert as fact except allude to some notion that it HAS to go the same way as before because....reasons?

---

The latest saga in the Middle East Forever Wars is different this time guys I swear!!

It was more a reply to your snark of the going smoothly and inferring that you were still holding on to your GWOT 2.0 idea. Which tbf, could be true. I just don't believe it and you haven't given any good counters to make me think it might be.

Eliminatus said:

---

It was more a reply to your snark of the going smoothly and inferring that you were still holding on to your GWOT 2.0 idea. Which tbf, could be true. I just don't believe it and you haven't given any good counters to make me think it might be.

---

Thank you for admitting it could be true. I know that took alot.

You know my position. I am sick of Forever War. OG 2016 Trump campaigned on ending Forever War. I am obviously frustrated because I am sick of wasting American money and lives in the middle east on behalf of a foreign nation.

Keyno said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

It was more a reply to your snark of the going smoothly and inferring that you were still holding on to your GWOT 2.0 idea. Which tbf, could be true. I just don't believe it and you haven't given any good counters to make me think it might be.

---

Thank you for admitting it could be true. I know that took alot.

You know my position. I am sick of Forever War. OG 2016 Trump campaigned on ending Forever War. I am obviously frustrated because I am sick of wasting American money and lives in the middle east on behalf of a foreign nation.

---

It has nothing to do with how you FEEL about it. Unless you are just admitting that is why you refuse to acknowledge other possibilities may exist? I was just outlining why a potential Iranian conflict would probably not go down as Iraq 2.0. Pretty clear though you are not actually interested in discussion about this. Mea culpa. I actually don't recall your username at all so don't know your history and took a chance that you were open to such things. Bad on me for expecting nuanced and intelligent discourse on F16. I don't visit here often anymore and forgot I guess.

I'll let ya get back to your doom and gloom post haste.

And ftr, also not a fan of more ME conflict. Unless solid and clear benefits can be outlined from the beginning. Which we have not seen yet. I can think of some perhaps but until we know the administration also has those in mind and elucidates that from the get go, I will also oppose it on general principle.

Iran is the primary reason we are still in Iraq and Syria. The Iranian regime is the clog in the ****ter that is the ME. Remove the clog and you can flush the whole festering mess down the drain.

Eliminatus said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

It was more a reply to your snark of the going smoothly and inferring that you were still holding on to your GWOT 2.0 idea. Which tbf, could be true. I just don't believe it and you haven't given any good counters to make me think it might be.

---

Thank you for admitting it could be true. I know that took alot.

You know my position. I am sick of Forever War. OG 2016 Trump campaigned on ending Forever War. I am obviously frustrated because I am sick of wasting American money and lives in the middle east on behalf of a foreign nation.

---

It has nothing to do with how you FEEL about it. Unless you are just admitting that is why you refuse to acknowledge other possibilities may exist? I was just outlining why a potential Iranian conflict would probably not go down as Iraq 2.0. Pretty clear though you are not actually interested in discussion about this. Mea culpa. I actually don't recall your username at all so don't know your history and took a chance that you were open to such things. Bad on me for expecting nuanced and intelligent discourse on F16. I don't visit here often anymore and forgot I guess.

I'll let ya get back to your doom and gloom post haste.

And ftr, also not a fan of more ME conflict. Unless solid and clear benefits can be outlined from the beginning. Which we have not seen yet. I can think of some perhaps but until we know the administration also has those in mind and elucidates that from the get go, I will also oppose it on general principle.

---

Cool so we both now oppose Iran intervention. I knew you were cool

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Wow. Uh, in the last war last fought year lasted all of 12 days resulting in the total defeat of Iran's air defense. As of 1939 if you dont control the air you dont control squat. Get caught up. You're only ~80 years out of date.

It isn't a question of if we intervene but when AND to what degree.

ttu_85 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Keyno said:

---

This is shaping up very similarly to last year's hit on Iran. We are in "negotiations". We have given an ultimatum (a much shorter time frame this time). We are deploying strike packages. Basically nobody is going to back down.

The concerning difference this time is that Trump seems to want to do "regime change" now. Whether that is due to the wishes of Netanyahu or Trump's stubbornness to not make a deal after ripping up the JCPOA , we may never know. What we do know is that a "regime change" would need boots on the ground (Iraq), or many years of air strikes and backing insurgents until the government collapses (Syria). Both of these options are the standard characteristics of the so called Forever War Trump used to oppose.

I would say we hit Iran in some way before summer.

---

LMAO as if the TWO options you presented are the only possible reasons Trump wants Regime Change.

not that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years

not that Iran took Americans hostage for 444 days

not that Iran blew up 243 Marines in Beirut in 1983

not that Iran supplied VBIEDs in Iraq which killed hundreds of American personnel

not that Iran has lied about the Missile Technology Control Regime and NPT and JCPOA

not that Iran threatens the USA literally every day with destruction

I could literally post another ten valid reasons.

but nope, according to this guy it's only because of 1. The Jews 2. The Stubborness of Trump

---

I was speaking strictly in terms of now vs last year.

Last year, our negotiations were ONLY about enrichment. The United States has a non proliferation policy. This year, its about enrichment, as well as ICBMs and proxies. And Trump has been suggesting it's a regime change thing. No matter what, Iran is not going to back down. We had a deal with Iran (JCPOA) but Trump tore it up in his first term.

Israel is the main driver of this war. America has no worry about Iranian ICBMs or proxies, but Israel does. So it will probably be war

---

I think you are conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical landscape which has already been pointed out numerous times. I'm absolutely not a fan of us getting into wars, but you can't deny the opportunity in front of Trump to topple VZ, Cuba, and Iran who are all intimately connected through resource and intelligence sharing.

---

Yeah I get it. But Iran is not Iraq or Syria. And we are still in Iraq and Syria 25 years later. And OG 2016 Trump said Iraq was a mistake

---

Yes, but those wars had boots on the ground. This one will not.

If for some reason we start talking boots on the ground, then I'm square in your camp.

---

I said it in here earlier, a regime change war is going to take boots on the ground (Iraq) or years of airstrikes and funding insurgent terrorists (Syria). Are you saying you are cool with 10+ years of more Forever War? I didn't vote for that

---

Absolutely not cool with that.

I'm sure the underlying assumption here is that we are trying to "nudge" the current regime out of power with a combination of air strikes + sanctions + crippling their economy + reliance on their catastrophic water shortage + assets on the inside which are clearly there based on the previous Starlink smuggling campaign.

Will all of this work? Who knows. If it doesn't, then I say we pull stakes and leave. I'm in no way in favor of US troops on the ground. If above doesn't work, then I hope we at least degrade their nuke capabilities even further before leaving.

---

I know I am younger than you and I can remember the build up to the Iraq War. 2003. It sounded similarly to what you are saying now. And we are STILL in Iraq 25 years later. And Iran is much larger than Iraq with a stronger military. But yea maybe this time it will go like you say

---

But Operation Iraqi Freedom always had the intent to go in on the ground. We do not here...so far.

Massive difference. Again, if that changes, so does my opinion.

---

Iran is like 3 times larger than Iraq. With a more advanced military. Use your head. How do you think this is going to go

---

Wow. Uh, in the last war last fought year lasted all of 12 days resulting in the total defeat of Iran's air defense. As of 1939 if you dont control the air you dont control squat. Get caught up. You're only ~80 years out of date.

---

You clearly do not understand what we are talking about. But I admire your smugness in spite of the fact.