TAMUallen said:

---

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

---

This. It's going to happen. WAY too much buildup to just be gunboat diplomacy.

Keyno said:

---

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.

---

Ironic post is ironic.

Keyno said:

---

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

---

Feels like a demerit thinking you think I am 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

---

See what Eliminatus said. I am using my head and laid out the reasons of why I think we are doing this now which is wholly separate of how it could go.

There is zero appetite by anyone in Congress or the WH to put boots on the ground, so if this regime change fails because of that then it fails. I'm just saying they are taking a shot at it now because of the various variables in play at the moment which could totally fall apart. It looks like we are going to find out.

I also don't think their military is necessarily more advanced than Iraq's. Their Air Force and air defense is already gone due to Israel as has already been posted. Their "navy" will likely never make it out of port.

That leaves them with missiles and drones. Not sure we know how many missiles they have after the last conflict. I'm sure they've ramped their drone count back up because those are easy to build.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

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.

---

Ironic post is ironic.

---

ttu85 thinks a one off bombing is a "war". I am sure he is clued in on the situation though.

YouBet 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

---

See what Eliminatus said. I am using my head and laid out the reasons of why I think we are doing this now which is wholly separate of how it could go.

There is zero appetite by anyone in Congress or the WH to put boots on the ground, so if this regime change fails because of that then it fails. I'm just saying they are taking a shot at it now because of the various variables in play at the moment which could totally fall apart. It looks like we are going to find out.

I also don't think their military is necessarily more advanced than Iraq's. Their Air Force and air defense is already gone due to Israel as has already been posted. Their "navy" will likely never make it out of port.

That leaves them with missiles and drones. Not sure we know how many missiles they have after the last conflict. I'm sure they've ramped their drone count back up because those are easy to build.

---

They are taking a shot at it now because that's what Israel wants. The United States has never had a "regime change" posture towards Iran until like a month ago.

Keyno said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

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.

---

Ironic post is ironic.

---

ttu85 thinks a one off bombing is a "war". I am sure he is clued in on the situation though.

---

You mean the one off bombing that completely destroyed not only Iran's AF but their air defense network? The one they spent decades building with massive amounts of funding and international help? The one that also did horrendous damage to their rocket forces which is their premier offensive fighting power? All of these which just can't replaced overnight?

Man, please keep going. This is flat out entertaining at this point.

We've been looking for regime change since the day Reagan took office.

nvmd

Of course they would. Britain is no longer British. They are governed by Muslims and Iran is an ally. Time to leave NATO.

— Mitzi Sharbono (@MitziSharb4568) February 19, 2026

About right. Maybe?

Of note - https://t.co/31LvF56Afk

The Telegraph reports that the US can use Diego Garcia, but not RAF Fairford

— Confuflicated (@confuflicated) February 19, 2026

How about a 4,000 percent tariff on all goods from the UK effective at midnight, and immediate announcement of closure of our air bases in the UK?

agent-maroon said:

---

We've been looking for regime change since the day Reagan took office.

---

1996 with the Clean Break Memo

Keyno said:

---

YouBet 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

---

See what Eliminatus said. I am using my head and laid out the reasons of why I think we are doing this now which is wholly separate of how it could go.

There is zero appetite by anyone in Congress or the WH to put boots on the ground, so if this regime change fails because of that then it fails. I'm just saying they are taking a shot at it now because of the various variables in play at the moment which could totally fall apart. It looks like we are going to find out.

I also don't think their military is necessarily more advanced than Iraq's. Their Air Force and air defense is already gone due to Israel as has already been posted. Their "navy" will likely never make it out of port.

That leaves them with missiles and drones. Not sure we know how many missiles they have after the last conflict. I'm sure they've ramped their drone count back up because those are easy to build.

---

They are taking a shot at it now because that's what Israel wants. The United States has never had a "regime change" posture towards Iran until like a month ago.

---

I've already said in this thread or another one but of course Israel wants us to do this.

In parallel, we are potentially doing this because of the converging variables that are happening right now that we've never seen since the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah plus the close ties between Iran, VZ, and Cuba. It's potentially a 3 for 1 special here.

Both / all can be true, so I do not believe this is solely because of Israel although their desires certainly play into it, obviously.

WinTheWholeDamnThing said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

We've been looking for regime change since the day Reagan took office.

---

1996 with the Clean Break Memo

---

Israel has wanted it since 1979. "War with Iran" has been on the docket since the Clean Break Memo though, you are right

YouBet said:

---

Keyno said:

---

YouBet 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

---

See what Eliminatus said. I am using my head and laid out the reasons of why I think we are doing this now which is wholly separate of how it could go.

There is zero appetite by anyone in Congress or the WH to put boots on the ground, so if this regime change fails because of that then it fails. I'm just saying they are taking a shot at it now because of the various variables in play at the moment which could totally fall apart. It looks like we are going to find out.

I also don't think their military is necessarily more advanced than Iraq's. Their Air Force and air defense is already gone due to Israel as has already been posted. Their "navy" will likely never make it out of port.

That leaves them with missiles and drones. Not sure we know how many missiles they have after the last conflict. I'm sure they've ramped their drone count back up because those are easy to build.

---

They are taking a shot at it now because that's what Israel wants. The United States has never had a "regime change" posture towards Iran until like a month ago.

---

I've already said in this thread or another one but of course Israel wants us to do this.

---

So we do it

Keyno is a known isolationist Tucker Carlson lemming who last year was actively defending Iran as the victim of neocon aggression and WERE NOT building nukes. You see, if it weren't lil ol Israel, Iran wouldn't be chanting Death to American or killing Americans through their terrorist proxies.

It's all an Israeli psy-op, you see.

There is not a single actual military intelligence officer who would ever claim that the Iranian military of 2026 is stronger than the Iraqi military of 1991 or 2003!!

As of February 2026, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) remains technologically outmatched by both Israel and the United States.

While Iran maintains a large numerical inventory, its fleet consists primarily of aging 3rd and 4th-generation aircraft. In contrast, Israel and the U.S. operate 5th-generation stealth fighters and maintain significant regional air dominance.

1. Iran vs. Israel: Technological Gap

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) is considered the most advanced in the region, possessing high-end American platforms modified with domestic electronic warfare systems.

Stealth Advantage: Israel operates 48 F-35I "Adir" stealth fighters as of January 2026, with two more expected by year-end to complete its initial 50-jet order. Iran has no stealth equivalent.

Modern Fleet: The IAF backbone includes roughly 174 F-16s and 66 F-15s, which far outclass Iran's Vietnam-era F-4s and F-14s in precision and reliability.

Recent Combat: In June 2025, Israel reportedly achieved "aerial superiority" over Tehran during Operation Rising Lion, highlighting the vulnerability of Iran's integrated air defense systems.

Iran has had no access to spare parts for those planes for decades. The likelihood that they could get more than a small percentage off the ground is very low IMO.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm generally in favor of an air campaign, with Israel doing the bulk of the legwork, to knock out the Iranian regime. I tend to agree with much of your posts and defer to posters like you and GAC06 when it comes to the operations side of all this because I know you guys have a lot of experience.

Having said that, the concern here is the power vacuum created when the regime is toppled. Presumably we have assets in place to assist a transitional government getting established. But so does China, Russia and others in the region like India.

As you said in your posts, congress owns much of the Iraq debacle; but generally the United States has a terrible recent history of propping up governments that are corrupt, despised by the populace, and arguably illegitimate like the RVN. For all the money we spent and lives the US laid down since 1942, the Soviets eventually were able to secure governments in communist China, Mongolia, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere. They were able to do this because Americans are unwilling to do what's necessary to secure total victory in a modern, mechanized war. We just are not willing to stomach watching hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of civilians die in a war to prop up yet another terrible government. My concern is anything following the current Iranian regime. Who are we trading the Ayatollahs with? What other, outside actors, will be agitating and promoting civil war within Iran (this goes back to K2's worry about China ultimately taking advantage of the situation).

Quote:

---

I'm generally in favor of an air campaign, with Israel doing the bulk of the legwork, to knock out the Iranian regime.

---

After losses in the fight against Hamas, will they have enough manpower (it's Israel, so also woman power) to get it done?

That is a reasonable concern IMO. My assumption is that you see something similar to what is happening in Venezuela now. We take out enough of the radical clerics that those that remain lose their hold on power and then someone in Iran with enough muscle to control the military and restore order takes over under the watchful eye of the US while they rebuild a government we approve of.

In Venezuela you have Delcy running things in an interim role but they have daily calls with Rubio, Hegseth, and the CIA Director.

bonfarr said:

---

Iran has had no access to spare parts for those planes for decades. The likelihood that they could get more than a small percentage off the ground is very low IMO.

---

More important is that we pull out our Venezuelan gear to shut them down completely. Strike specifically and hard without American casualties. I hate having to be world police but if we are currently operating gear that leaves enemies unable to defend themselves then that has a MASSIVELY LARGER benefit than the downside of dipping our toes into the water again

Did Israel lose air assets to Hamas?

Israel isn't sending boots on the ground into Iran if that's what you were asking about. I think about a 0% chance that would happen.

I assumed that's what "legwork" meant if we were taking care of air superiority. I suppose it could be limited numbers of operators helping things along.

bonfarr said:

---

Did Israel lose air assets to Hamas?

Israel isn't sending boots on the ground into Iran if that's what you were asking about. I think about a 0% chance that would happen.

---

I guess you have to be more specific, if by boots, you mean battalion size troop movement, probably not. They 100% already have boots on the ground though.

I think we see heavy use of CIA and Mossad agents inside Iran as well as use of SF teams in limited engagements. CIA and Mossad aiding Iranian dissidents while they overrun government buildings and police stations etc and while they battle the Shia militants that were brought in from Iraq. This is basically going to be the Bay of Pigs if Kennedy hadn't lost his nerve.

BBRex said:

---

I assumed that's what "legwork" meant if we were taking care of air superiority. I suppose it could be limited numbers of operators helping things along.

---

Sorry, the word legwork isn't really compatible with air campaign I guess. I really did mean that Israel would carry out the bulk of the work in an air campaign. I have a hard time believing the IDF would deploy to Iran in any kind of sizable fashion.

bonfarr said:

---

That is a reasonable concern IMO. My assumption is that you see something similar to what is happening in Venezuela now. We take out enough of the radical clerics that those that remain lose their hold on power and then someone in Iran with enough muscle to control the military and restore order takes over under the watchful eye of the US while they rebuild a government we approve of.

In Venezuela you have Delcy running things in an interim role but they have daily calls with Rubio, Hegseth, and the CIA Director.

---

This is what I fear: China, or a combination of China, Russia and possibly India, will agitate and angle to install their own puppets. They will use their money and influence to foment a civil war in Iran to keep us mired in trying to prop up our chosen government. It's what I would do if I were them, and it's what we're doing (albeit under different circumstances) by arming and funding Ukraine with Russia.

Secondly, the mercurial and unstable nature of modern day US politics isn't built for long-term conflict. I know if I were an Iranian leader, there's no way I'd want to risk putting my eggs in the Trump basket knowing that the day he leaves office, the Democrat that replaces him will simply pull everything out from underneath me, which puts me and my family and everything I've worked for at risk. I'm not sure the type of person who IS willing to go through that is the type of person we can really trust.

Belton Ag said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

That is a reasonable concern IMO. My assumption is that you see something similar to what is happening in Venezuela now. We take out enough of the radical clerics that those that remain lose their hold on power and then someone in Iran with enough muscle to control the military and restore order takes over under the watchful eye of the US while they rebuild a government we approve of.

In Venezuela you have Delcy running things in an interim role but they have daily calls with Rubio, Hegseth, and the CIA Director.

---

This is what I fear: China, or a combination of China, Russia and possibly India, will agitate and angle to install their own puppets. They will use their money and influence to foment a civil war in Iran to keep us mired in trying to prop up our chosen government. It's what I would do if I were them, and it's what we're doing (albeit under different circumstances) by arming and funding Ukraine with Russia.

Secondly, the mercurial and unstable nature of modern day US politics isn't built for long-term conflict. I know if I were an Iranian leader, there's no way I'd want to risk putting my eggs in the Trump basket knowing that the day he leaves office, the Democrat that replaces him will simply pull everything out from underneath me, which puts me and my family and everything I've worked for at risk. I'm not sure the type of person who IS willing to go through that is the type of person we can really trust.

---

And this would somehow be a worse option than what we have now? I literally cannot think of a worse option then having a radical suicidal fundamentalist death cult leading an entire nation with the ambition of "death to Israel" and "death to America" who have ALREADY shown they are willing to fund and support terror organizations all over the world. LITERALLY ANYTHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT IS IN POWER NOW.

Unlike other places recently, Iran at least has a history of Western culture and values. If there people are given the chance and fall short, it is hard to imagine anything worse that can come from this.

I get it. I really do. It's why I said that I generally support an air campaign to knock out the regime, if it's that close to toppling.

Yes, a secular government is much more preferable to the Ayatollahs.

I'm just asking questions and thinking through scenarios that can present if we choose to go down this path.

you don't say!

Sounds like he wants a deal!! https://t.co/Qgqq1NWgIt

— Brian Kilmeade (@kilmeade) February 20, 2026

Starmer blocks UK airbase and Diego Garcia from US use to strike Iran. Someone remind me again of what close allies the Brits are and how NATO is such a great organization for America to subsidize? Another 'ally' which is always begging and whining comes to mind as well.

In all seriousness I question if he really has a leg to stand on here, but as with the stories that the UAE/Qatar were forbidding us from using our bases to launch attacks on Iran, it's another example of our cowardly so-called friends thinking they have authority to dictate US policy after doing nothing but sniping at American people for electing Trump again for the past year. What is Starmer going to do if Trump just ignores him? Nada.

U.K. Denying U.S. Use Of Key Bases Would Impact Bombers’ Role In Iran Air Campaign

The U.K. is reportedly preventing the U.S. from using Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford to attack Iran.https://t.co/8yS9iIYsNk

— The War Zone (@thewarzonewire) February 19, 2026

Trump should announce the planned closure of Fairfield anyway, and removal of all US troops/weapons from the UK. We have something like 12,000 airmen/soldiers there and the bases cost a fortune to operate/maintain. And of course get out of nato.

We could just take the uk like greenland, they have no will to fight.

Europe showing us why they can't be trusted with Greenland.

Trump now saying he's considering limited strikes.