YouBet said:

---

From a political fallout standpoint, I think we need to leave Iran and focus on the Western Hemisphere almost fully. Internally, we have a burgeoning national crisis on our hands right now with the rise of communism in this country via the DSA. All efforts need to be focused on purging those people. DSA is openly allying with China. It's a literal insurgency gaining a ton of steam. When mainline Democrats are now fretting, it's time to address it but we are distracted with the Iran quagmire that is not going to change.

---

I was surprised when Trump started the attacks with Iran having run on, per Google:

Quote:

---

Yes, Donald Trump heavily campaigned on an "America First" platform during the 2024 election leading into his second term, utilizing rhetoric rooted in national sovereignty, skepticism of foreign entanglements, and protectionist tariffs

---

The tarrifs, like everything EO, easy peasy. The foreign entanglements, with everyone in Trump's orbit having lived through the Iraq debacle, seemed a given that he wouldn't do anything of this magnitude. The bombing last summer made sense, and he said Iran was no longer able to produce nukes at that time.

We have many problems in this country, where the money going to attack Iran could be better spent if either side of the aisle were asked.

I don't think we should leave. We started the military engagement for reasons that I strongly supported Trump for saying: freeing the Iranians who have been protesting for a return to the world they once had. Trump told them help was on the way. If more can be done to help them, then we should.

Words have meanings in the real world. I'd like to think the reason Trump hasn't called this thing off is because he still wants to accomplish what he set out.

I hope he does.

Is Iran-IRGC playing Trump / America like a "fiddle" with another agreement/delay??

When has the IRGC been honest???

EVER????

I understand why we took the shot at Iran in context of the larger picture. And much was accomplished minus regime change which was not in the original list of objectives, then it was, then it wasn't, and now nobody knows and we all argue about it.

What was not anticipated and was a huge miss was the militarization of Hormuz. That part of it is an L for us and there isn't much to be done about it at this point in the short-term. In the long-term, countries will figure out alternate supply chains albeit that will take a decade or so. Ultimately, Hormuz will be China's route for oil and gas and most others will do something different, or pay the toll.

If it were up to me, I would irradiate all of their known nuke sites and make them uninhabitable for the time being and then leave. I might give them a day's notice to get any civilians out but that's it. I would just keep doing that anytime they tried to open up a new site. I realize this isn't realistic.

This thing is over and is now whatever historical military no end in sight term we want to use: quagmire, albatross, etc. Trump looks really, really stupid right now and that's his own fault. You are never going to win a negotiation via social media with an irrational, Islamic culture that wants us all dead. It's idiocy on his part and I'm embarrassed for him, frankly.

What he should is lay out the objectives that were accomplished and then start pushing and supporting alternative supply chains that bypass Hormuz as much as possible. That's your way forward now.

President Trump again called off strikes on Iran—this is a good decision.

It is clear that he wants out of this war, for all the obvious reasons. It is also clear that Iran will not simply return the SOH to how it was before the war.

We need to accept that we can’t use… pic.twitter.com/5Nft8d4xFC

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) August 2, 2026

I wonder how much being in Trump's administration is going to be a millstone for people who want to seek other offices, including the presidency.

Do Trump's antics make Vance and Rubio look so bad that they are tarnished by being part of it all?

I have grown to admire Rubio a great deal and would hate to see his chances nationwide spoiled by being part of Trump's ****show (and I voted for Trump three times).

YouBet said:

---

I understand why we took the shot at Iran in context of the larger picture. And much was accomplished minus regime change which was not in the original list of objectives, then it was, then it wasn't, and now nobody knows and we all argue about it.

What was not anticipated and was a huge miss was the militarization of Hormuz. That part of it is an L for us and there isn't much to be done about it at this point in the short-term. In the long-term, countries will figure out alternate supply chains albeit that will take a decade or so. Ultimately, Hormuz will be China's route for oil and gas and most others will do something different, or pay the toll.

If it were up to me, I would irradiate all of their known nuke sites and make them uninhabitable for the time being and then leave. I might give them a day's notice to get any civilians out but that's it. I would just keep doing that anytime they tried to open up a new site. I realize this isn't realistic.

This thing is over and is now whatever historical military no end in sight term we want to use: quagmire, albatross, etc. Trump looks really, really stupid right now and that's his own fault. You are never going to win a negotiation via social media with an irrational, Islamic culture that wants us all dead. It's idiocy on his part and I'm embarrassed for him, frankly.

What he should is lay out the objectives that were accomplished and then start pushing and supporting alternative supply chains that bypass Hormuz as much as possible. That's your way forward now.

---

So we lost something we started?

I get much was accomplished, but how much was accomplished that actually changed anything in regards to IRan and nukes?

If making sure Iran never gets nukes, leaving any second before that is an actual fact, makes the whole thing pointless. Yes, we can say we accomplished other things, but that's like our Aggies bragging about how they won the Half-Time or time of possession.

If you don't win you don't win, and right now we're winning but haven't actually won.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you.

I'm just a firm believer in that if you start something, you did all your homework so that you would finish it; not walk away when it got hard.

Appreciate the back and forth, by the way. It's good to get another perspective.

OldArmy71 said:

---

I wonder how much being in Trump's administration is going to be a millstone for people who want to seek other offices, including the presidency.

Do Trump's antics make Vance and Rubio look so bad that they are tarnished by being part of it all?

I have grown to admire Rubio a great deal and would hate to see his chances nationwide spoiled by being part of Trump's ****show (and I voted for Trump three times).

---

Rubio is far enough away from Trump that he won't have to worry.

Vance on the other hand will have a hard time in debates when asked why he supported Trump when he personally was against what Trump was doing.

Rubio can at least fall back on doing his job to the best of his abilities. And let's be honest, the guy has been stellar every step of the way.

Rubio '28.

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I understand why we took the shot at Iran in context of the larger picture. And much was accomplished minus regime change which was not in the original list of objectives, then it was, then it wasn't, and now nobody knows and we all argue about it.

What was not anticipated and was a huge miss was the militarization of Hormuz. That part of it is an L for us and there isn't much to be done about it at this point in the short-term. In the long-term, countries will figure out alternate supply chains albeit that will take a decade or so. Ultimately, Hormuz will be China's route for oil and gas and most others will do something different, or pay the toll.

If it were up to me, I would irradiate all of their known nuke sites and make them uninhabitable for the time being and then leave. I might give them a day's notice to get any civilians out but that's it. I would just keep doing that anytime they tried to open up a new site. I realize this isn't realistic.

This thing is over and is now whatever historical military no end in sight term we want to use: quagmire, albatross, etc. Trump looks really, really stupid right now and that's his own fault. You are never going to win a negotiation via social media with an irrational, Islamic culture that wants us all dead. It's idiocy on his part and I'm embarrassed for him, frankly.

What he should is lay out the objectives that were accomplished and then start pushing and supporting alternative supply chains that bypass Hormuz as much as possible. That's your way forward now.

---

So we lost something we started?

I get much was accomplished, but how much was accomplished that actually changed anything in regards to IRan and nukes?

If making sure Iran never gets nukes, leaving any second before that is an actual fact, makes the whole thing pointless. Yes, we can say we accomplished other things, but that's like our Aggies bragging about how they won the Half-Time or time of possession.

If you don't win you don't win, and right now we're winning but haven't actually won.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you.

I'm just a firm believer in that if you start something, you did all your homework so that you would finish it; not walk away when it got hard.

Appreciate the back and forth, by the way. It's good to get another perspective.

---

Regarding nukes, we delayed them developing those which has pretty much always been US policy until Trump declared we were going to solve once and for all. Unfortunately, I think we've realized that all of the past wargaming on attacking Iran has proven to be true - we can't defeat them unless we go all-in via WWII.

I'm just not sure what more you can do without (1) boots on the ground, or (2) nuking them. Neither option is palatable for the American people so knowing that reality then what do you do? Containment Strategy is your only bet now. My containment strategy would be extreme which is also not palatable, so really at a loss at this point.

This perpetual tit for tat bombing and **** talking via social media is just theater. If we aren't going to really do anything, then come home and address domestic issues and continuing nurturing the Western Hemisphere away from totalitarianism Marxism. Unfortunately, we now have that rising quickly in our own country.

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I understand why we took the shot at Iran in context of the larger picture. And much was accomplished minus regime change which was not in the original list of objectives, then it was, then it wasn't, and now nobody knows and we all argue about it.

What was not anticipated and was a huge miss was the militarization of Hormuz. That part of it is an L for us and there isn't much to be done about it at this point in the short-term. In the long-term, countries will figure out alternate supply chains albeit that will take a decade or so. Ultimately, Hormuz will be China's route for oil and gas and most others will do something different, or pay the toll.

If it were up to me, I would irradiate all of their known nuke sites and make them uninhabitable for the time being and then leave. I might give them a day's notice to get any civilians out but that's it. I would just keep doing that anytime they tried to open up a new site. I realize this isn't realistic.

This thing is over and is now whatever historical military no end in sight term we want to use: quagmire, albatross, etc. Trump looks really, really stupid right now and that's his own fault. You are never going to win a negotiation via social media with an irrational, Islamic culture that wants us all dead. It's idiocy on his part and I'm embarrassed for him, frankly.

What he should is lay out the objectives that were accomplished and then start pushing and supporting alternative supply chains that bypass Hormuz as much as possible. That's your way forward now.

---

So we lost something we started?

I get much was accomplished, but how much was accomplished that actually changed anything in regards to IRan and nukes?

If making sure Iran never gets nukes, leaving any second before that is an actual fact, makes the whole thing pointless. Yes, we can say we accomplished other things, but that's like our Aggies bragging about how they won the Half-Time or time of possession.

If you don't win you don't win, and right now we're winning but haven't actually won.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you.

I'm just a firm believer in that if you start something, you did all your homework so that you would finish it; not walk away when it got hard.

Appreciate the back and forth, by the way. It's good to get another perspective.

---

Regarding nukes, we delayed them developing those which has pretty much always been US policy until Trump declared we were going to solve once and for all. Unfortunately, I think we've realized that all of the past wargaming on attacking Iran has proven to be true - we can't defeat them unless we go all-in via WWII.

I'm just not sure what more you can do without (1) boots on the ground, or (2) nuking them. Neither option is palatable for the American people so knowing that reality then what do you do? Containment Strategy is your only bet now. My containment strategy would be extreme which is also not palatable, so really at a loss at this point.

This perpetual tit for tat bombing and **** talking via social media is just theater. If we aren't going to really do anything, then come home and address domestic issues and continuing nurturing the Western Hemisphere away from totalitarianism Marxism. Unfortunately, we now have that rising quickly in our own country.

---

We agree more than we disagree. I appreciate that.

Here's to seeing what happens, then. And, more importantly, that the Iranians who want to be free get the country they deserve.

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I understand why we took the shot at Iran in context of the larger picture. And much was accomplished minus regime change which was not in the original list of objectives, then it was, then it wasn't, and now nobody knows and we all argue about it.

What was not anticipated and was a huge miss was the militarization of Hormuz. That part of it is an L for us and there isn't much to be done about it at this point in the short-term. In the long-term, countries will figure out alternate supply chains albeit that will take a decade or so. Ultimately, Hormuz will be China's route for oil and gas and most others will do something different, or pay the toll.

If it were up to me, I would irradiate all of their known nuke sites and make them uninhabitable for the time being and then leave. I might give them a day's notice to get any civilians out but that's it. I would just keep doing that anytime they tried to open up a new site. I realize this isn't realistic.

This thing is over and is now whatever historical military no end in sight term we want to use: quagmire, albatross, etc. Trump looks really, really stupid right now and that's his own fault. You are never going to win a negotiation via social media with an irrational, Islamic culture that wants us all dead. It's idiocy on his part and I'm embarrassed for him, frankly.

What he should is lay out the objectives that were accomplished and then start pushing and supporting alternative supply chains that bypass Hormuz as much as possible. That's your way forward now.

---

So we lost something we started?

I get much was accomplished, but how much was accomplished that actually changed anything in regards to IRan and nukes?

If making sure Iran never gets nukes, leaving any second before that is an actual fact, makes the whole thing pointless. Yes, we can say we accomplished other things, but that's like our Aggies bragging about how they won the Half-Time or time of possession.

If you don't win you don't win, and right now we're winning but haven't actually won.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you.

I'm just a firm believer in that if you start something, you did all your homework so that you would finish it; not walk away when it got hard.

Appreciate the back and forth, by the way. It's good to get another perspective.

---

Regarding nukes, we delayed them developing those which has pretty much always been US policy until Trump declared we were going to solve once and for all. Unfortunately, I think we've realized that all of the past wargaming on attacking Iran has proven to be true - we can't defeat them unless we go all-in via WWII.

I'm just not sure what more you can do without (1) boots on the ground, or (2) nuking them. Neither option is palatable for the American people so knowing that reality then what do you do? Containment Strategy is your only bet now. My containment strategy would be extreme which is also not palatable, so really at a loss at this point.

This perpetual tit for tat bombing and **** talking via social media is just theater. If we aren't going to really do anything, then come home and address domestic issues and continuing nurturing the Western Hemisphere away from totalitarianism Marxism. Unfortunately, we now have that rising quickly in our own country.

---

We agree more than we disagree. I appreciate that.

Here's to seeing what happens, then. And, more importantly, that the Iranians who want to be free get the country they deserve.

---

I hope they do as well, but it's probably going to take them rising up and dying in huge numbers to get there.

YouBet said:

---

From a political fallout standpoint, I think we need to leave Iran and focus on the Western Hemisphere almost fully. Internally, we have a burgeoning national crisis on our hands right now with the rise of communism in this country via the DSA. All efforts need to be focused on purging those people. DSA is openly allying with China. It's a literal insurgency gaining a ton of steam. When mainline Democrats are now fretting, it's time to address it but we are distracted with the Iran quagmire that is not going to change.

---

I don't know if this is getting too far off topic from the intent of the thread, but I think actions like we undertook with starting a war with Iran are directly pushing Americans more and more towards socialism (not so much communism). I say that because Americans really don't care about capitalism or socialism or communism anymore, all they care about is their ability to have a fancy new cell phone, or car, or buy eggs, and have healthcare for their family.

Trump campaigned on making life better by stopping spending overseas - be it on USAID, or military spending via wars. Now he's doing the complete opposite. Gas prices are surging, food costs are surging, interest rates on housing is going back up, housing itself is ridiculously expensive (renting or buying) in much of the country, wages are stagnant, and healthcare is getting more and more unaffordable. Meanwhile, we're saying we need to increase our annual DoD budget by nearly 50% to 1.5 trillion. We just spent a solid 38+ billion directly on a war we didn't need to start. We probably lost 10's of billions more in base and equipment damages throughout the mid-east - if we end up rebuilding. And the increased fuel prices and inflation have already cost Americans an additional 40-70 billion. All told, in less than 5 months, the average American home spent an additional 1100 dollars.

If you're a young American, college educated or not, and you can barely cover your rent, you see no ability to buy a home on the horizon without getting a 50 year mortgage that Trump proposed, and you're seeing the rich get richer and richer while you're getting poorer (due to stagnant wages and inflation). It is becoming harder and harder to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Meanwhile, 20 billion to Israel over the last 2 years, 38 billion in Iran war costs, billions bombing Yemen, billions in additional inflationary costs - for what?

People's attention span to these events are measured in weeks. Politicians and media know this.

Trump is trying to get the quick wins knowing people aren't going to care about something drawn out like wars tend to go. Media then pushes periodic reminders/stories to keep things alive.

I don't envy being in that position, everything must be a quick win, which translates to no long term progress.

For what? So your trip to the playground in 10 years doesn't look like this…

Was for the war but now just full stop and go home. Israel basically told the US to screw off because we took the breaks off at the time we should have hit harder.

"Military terror"? Really?

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

From a political fallout standpoint, I think we need to leave Iran and focus on the Western Hemisphere almost fully. Internally, we have a burgeoning national crisis on our hands right now with the rise of communism in this country via the DSA. All efforts need to be focused on purging those people. DSA is openly allying with China. It's a literal insurgency gaining a ton of steam. When mainline Democrats are now fretting, it's time to address it but we are distracted with the Iran quagmire that is not going to change.

---

I don't know if this is getting too far off topic from the intent of the thread, but I think actions like we undertook with starting a war with Iran are directly pushing Americans more and more towards socialism (not so much communism). I say that because Americans really don't care about capitalism or socialism or communism anymore, all they care about is their ability to have a fancy new cell phone, or car, or buy eggs, and have healthcare for their family.

Trump campaigned on making life better by stopping spending overseas - be it on USAID, or military spending via wars. Now he's doing the complete opposite. Gas prices are surging, food costs are surging, interest rates on housing is going back up, housing itself is ridiculously expensive (renting or buying) in much of the country, wages are stagnant, and healthcare is getting more and more unaffordable. Meanwhile, we're saying we need to increase our annual DoD budget by nearly 50% to 1.5 trillion. We just spent a solid 38+ billion directly on a war we didn't need to start. We probably lost 10's of billions more in base and equipment damages throughout the mid-east - if we end up rebuilding. And the increased fuel prices and inflation have already cost Americans an additional 40-70 billion. All told, in less than 5 months, the average American home spent an additional 1100 dollars.

If you're a young American, college educated or not, and you can barely cover your rent, you see no ability to buy a home on the horizon without getting a 50 year mortgage that Trump proposed, and you're seeing the rich get richer and richer while you're getting poorer (due to stagnant wages and inflation). It is becoming harder and harder to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Meanwhile, 20 billion to Israel over the last 2 years, 38 billion in Iran war costs, billions bombing Yemen, billions in additional inflationary costs - for what?

---

I'll disagree with you on bold. The communist movement has been spooling up since before Iran. You are just seeing the culmination of their efforts bearing fruit now. And don't be fooled that this is just socialism. The DSA is flat out telling us it's much worse than that through their own policy plank. They have leapfrogged European socialism and are going full bore towards left wing totalitarianism. They are telling us this to our face.

And healthcare is not on Trump. It's only ever increased in price since we adopted the health insurance model and then Obamacare. Nothing you can do about that without massive reform that no one in Washington is willing to touch.

We certainly have some negative outcomes domestically because of Iran which would be mostly reversed overnight if we left.

OldArmy71 said:

---

I wonder how much being in Trump's administration is going to be a millstone for people who want to seek other offices, including the presidency.

Do Trump's antics make Vance and Rubio look so bad that they are tarnished by being part of it all?

I have grown to admire Rubio a great deal and would hate to see his chances nationwide spoiled by being part of Trump's ****show (and I voted for Trump three times).

---

of the three figures in his admin with obvious 2028 aspirations, the war is most damaging to hegseth, then vance, and rubio last. hegseth is cooked, but he never really had a chance anyway; the war was meant to be his meal ticket and he royally screwed it.

vance will suffer from the same problem harris had, which is being the VP to a deeply unpopular president. he's done his damndest to distance himself from trump since the war started but not good enough.

rubio at least maintains the most distance from the war and other chicanery, and has some legitimate accomplishments to hang his hat on.

It is very early to declare the Iran conflict a loss and assume the old Iranian guard can resume operations as before, especially when the entire world picture is taken into account. Iran's economy is in tatters. They're only allies economies are in tatters, China and Russia have major problems of their own. The world supply chain won't take 10 years to adapt. The true nature of Iran is now obvious for all.

The fundamentalists in Iran will have a much harder time keeping a lid on things now and pressure is surely mounting. I suspect what appears to us to be Iran lying and buying time is really nothing more than a power struggle within Iran between the fundamentalist military leaders and the rest of the government who are having a difficult time to say the least of getting their military under control.

Iran certainly is not closer to getting a nuke now than they were one year ago. They certainly do not have more missiles and rockets and proxy forces to unleash upon the world than they did one year ago. The pressure being put on their proxies should not be discounted.

It obviously did not go as smoothly as one would hope, but I find the argument that we are in a worse position than we were a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago hard to comprehend.

Pooh-ah95_ESL said:

---

It is very early to declare the Iran conflict a loss and assume the old Iranian guard can resume operations as before, especially when the entire world picture is taken into account. Iran's economy is in tatters. They're only allies economies are in tatters, China and Russia have major problems of their own. The world supply chain won't take 10 years to adapt. The true nature of Iran is now obvious for all.

The fundamentalists in Iran will have a much harder time keeping a lid on things now and pressure is surely mounting. I suspect what appears to us to be Iran lying and buying time is really nothing more than a power struggle within Iran between the fundamentalist military leaders and the rest of the government who are having a difficult time to say the least of getting their military under control.

Iran certainly is not closer to getting a nuke now than they were one year ago. They certainly do not have more missiles and rockets and proxy forces to unleash upon the world than they did one year ago. The pressure being put on their proxies should not be discounted.

It obviously did not go as smoothly as one would hope, but I find the argument that we are in a worse position than we were a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago hard to comprehend.

---

We are 5 months into a 3 week "excursion"

You can write as much cope as you want, but this conflict is not going the way we wanted.

twelve12twelve said:

---

Pooh-ah95_ESL said:

---

It is very early to declare the Iran conflict a loss and assume the old Iranian guard can resume operations as before, especially when the entire world picture is taken into account. Iran's economy is in tatters. They're only allies economies are in tatters, China and Russia have major problems of their own. The world supply chain won't take 10 years to adapt. The true nature of Iran is now obvious for all.

The fundamentalists in Iran will have a much harder time keeping a lid on things now and pressure is surely mounting. I suspect what appears to us to be Iran lying and buying time is really nothing more than a power struggle within Iran between the fundamentalist military leaders and the rest of the government who are having a difficult time to say the least of getting their military under control.

Iran certainly is not closer to getting a nuke now than they were one year ago. They certainly do not have more missiles and rockets and proxy forces to unleash upon the world than they did one year ago. The pressure being put on their proxies should not be discounted.

It obviously did not go as smoothly as one would hope, but I find the argument that we are in a worse position than we were a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago hard to comprehend.

---

We are 5 months into a 3 week "excursion"

You can write as much cope as you want, but this conflict is not going the way we wanted.

---

Most of us operating in reality know the 50+ year terrorist feeding monster Iran wasn't going to be solved in 3 weeks. We also know that doing nothing has never been an option. It would have been great if the Iran problem could have been solved easily. Maybe there was some optimism that the time was right but I would argue that most people that are the least bit politically astute aren't surprised by this outcome and quite frankly had we even known this to be the outcome that there were very little options to take of its place.

There is much more at play here than just Iran and in the much bigger playbook much of this makes sense. The world was foolish leaving their supply chains that energy supplies so vulnerable reinforcing the American argument since DJT's first term.

This is an escalated cold war between the West and the Axis of evil with massive pressure being applied at many points through tariffs, supply chain rearrangements, control of resources, destruction of proxies, and political pressure. It is all interrelated. Viewing Iran in a vacuum is a mistake.

Pooh-ah95_ESL said:

---

It is very early to declare the Iran conflict a loss and assume the old Iranian guard can resume operations as before, especially when the entire world picture is taken into account. Iran's economy is in tatters. They're only allies economies are in tatters, China and Russia have major problems of their own. The world supply chain won't take 10 years to adapt. The true nature of Iran is now obvious for all.

The fundamentalists in Iran will have a much harder time keeping a lid on things now and pressure is surely mounting. I suspect what appears to us to be Iran lying and buying time is really nothing more than a power struggle within Iran between the fundamentalist military leaders and the rest of the government who are having a difficult time to say the least of getting their military under control.

Iran certainly is not closer to getting a nuke now than they were one year ago. They certainly do not have more missiles and rockets and proxy forces to unleash upon the world than they did one year ago. The pressure being put on their proxies should not be discounted.

It obviously did not go as smoothly as one would hope, but I find the argument that we are in a worse position than we were a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago hard to comprehend.

---

I mostly agree with this. There have been wins and losses in this which is what I have said from the beginning. I just think this thing has run its course at this juncture and we need to wrap it up and come home. We set them back some years on what they were doing and funding and Israel has set back their proxies. You will never eradicate these people without genocide so periodic setbacks is about all you can do.

Hormuz was a loss in the short-term and I don't think there is any argument that can be made against that. The half glass full take which I proscribe to is that alternative supply chains will be figured out and a whole lot of interested parties are already pursuing it. I've been saying 10 years out for mitigation from that as a conservative hedge. I have no idea if it's 10+5 or 10-5 in reality.

Regardless, again, it's time to come home. I would love to see us leave some parting gifts that makes parts of Iran uninhabitable but that won't happen.

Iran is very emboldened now.

Quote:

---

Iranian officials are aware of Trump's political vulnerability and looking to exploit it if necessary, according to the Iranian diplomat. Should diplomacy fail, the IRGC is considering pre-emptive strikes even if the U.S. doesn't attack, the diplomat said.

---

YouBet said:

---

Iran is very emboldened now.

Quote:

---

Iranian officials are aware of Trump's political vulnerability and looking to exploit it if necessary, according to the Iranian diplomat. Should diplomacy fail, the IRGC is considering pre-emptive strikes even if the U.S. doesn't attack, the diplomat said.

---

---

I can guarantee you there were hardliners arguing for a preemptive strike in February while we were amassing forces. After attacking them twice under the guise of negotiations, it will be much easier for them to justify a preemptive strike to themselves. And also, will be much harder for us to amass forces in the region again.

Interesting video on YouTube I'm watching now: 'Iron fist' doesn't work with Iran: Former US hostage in Tehran | The Bottom Line

Multiple things can be true at once.

Iran is winning strategically right now. We have put ourselves in a very poor position with limited options.

Also, Iran is not a stable country. It is large and full of many regions and many minority groups that don't like the current government. Instead of bombing the government we should try to cut off access to different regions so that the central government loses control.

We probably shouldn't actually arm these other groups though because some of them are Taliban level bad

amercer said:

---

Multiple things can be true at once.

Iran is winning strategically right now. We have put ourselves in a very poor position with limited options.

Also, Iran is not a stable country. It is large and full of many regions and many minority groups that don't like the current government. Instead of bombing the government we should try to cut off access to different regions so that the central government loses control.

We probably shouldn't actually arm these other groups though because some of them are Taliban level bad

---

Yeah maybe. In our first strike back in February- we killed their Supreme Leader and most of their high ranking leadership. The regime withstood that. There was no riots or revolution. So what does that tell you? Maybe it's a little more "stable" than we thought

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

Keyno said:

---

amercer said:

---

Multiple things can be true at once.

Iran is winning strategically right now. We have put ourselves in a very poor position with limited options.

Also, Iran is not a stable country. It is large and full of many regions and many minority groups that don't like the current government. Instead of bombing the government we should try to cut off access to different regions so that the central government loses control.

We probably shouldn't actually arm these other groups though because some of them are Taliban level bad

---

Yeah maybe. In our first strike back in February- we killed their Supreme Leader and most of their high ranking leadership. The regime withstood that. There was no riots or revolution. So what does that tell you? Maybe it's a little more "stable" than we thought

---

Yeah... Most of what we "know" about approval of the government there, and how much they all want freedom or whatever comes from Mossad and the Iranian diaspora, that are mostly Pahlavists that lived large under the Shah, and left when he fell. Both of whom have ulterior motives in giving an accurate assessment of just how "easy" it'll be if we get involved.

Certainly there is a very large group of discontent Iranians, but I think the reality is that we don't have an accurate picture, and I think the "protests" in January were probably significantly influenced by outside forces and agitators.

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

---

Yet, we're still in the same position we were before.

traxter said:

---

Keyno said:

---

amercer said:

---

Multiple things can be true at once.

Iran is winning strategically right now. We have put ourselves in a very poor position with limited options.

Also, Iran is not a stable country. It is large and full of many regions and many minority groups that don't like the current government. Instead of bombing the government we should try to cut off access to different regions so that the central government loses control.

We probably shouldn't actually arm these other groups though because some of them are Taliban level bad

---

Yeah maybe. In our first strike back in February- we killed their Supreme Leader and most of their high ranking leadership. The regime withstood that. There was no riots or revolution. So what does that tell you? Maybe it's a little more "stable" than we thought

---

Yeah... Most of what we "know" about approval of the government there, and how much they all want freedom or whatever comes from Mossad and the Iranian diaspora, that are mostly Pahlavists that lived large under the Shah, and left when he fell. Both of whom have ulterior motives in giving an accurate assessment of just how "easy" it'll be if we get involved.

Certainly there is a very large group of discontent Iranians, but I think the reality is that we don't have an accurate picture, and I think the "protests" in January were probably significantly influenced by outside forces and agitators.

---

Yeah absolutely. I have said basically the same thing in this thread before. The concept of a "repressed population just waiting to rise up against the evil government for freedom" really plays well with American audiences (for obvious reasons). US government/media has been running that narrative for a long time with our ME adventures. And many wars prior.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

---

Yet, we're still in the same position we were before.

---

You asked what was better and I gave you receipts.

There are also things that are worse - Hormuz.

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

---

Yet, we're still in the same position we were before.

---

You asked what was better and I gave you receipts.

There are also things that are worse - Hormuz.

---

And the things you said that are better are based solely on what our current administration tells us. I've been hearing that Iran's military has been destroyed for over a year. However, my lying eyes tell me that's not the case.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

---

Yet, we're still in the same position we were before.

---

You asked what was better and I gave you receipts.

There are also things that are worse - Hormuz.

---

And the things you said that are better are based solely on what our current administration tells us. I've been hearing that Iran's military has been destroyed for over a year. However, my lying eyes tell me that's not the case.

---

I don't think that you have heard that other than their nuke capability. This fun hasn't been going on for over a year.

It's been reported by media as well as the government from all sides what I've shared. I'm quite sure all of MSM would be saying something different if it wasn't accurate.

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

---

Yet, we're still in the same position we were before.

---

You asked what was better and I gave you receipts.

There are also things that are worse - Hormuz.

---

And the things you said that are better are based solely on what our current administration tells us. I've been hearing that Iran's military has been destroyed for over a year. However, my lying eyes tell me that's not the case.

---

I don't think that you have heard that other than their nuke capability. This fun hasn't been going on for over a year.

It's been reported by media as well as the government from all sides what I've shared. I'm quite sure all of MSM would be saying something different if it wasn't accurate.

---

Ok, let's say that the Trump Administration never claimed we destroyed Iran's military capability until…what the heck…June of this year. June 7th to be precise. That was almost eight weeks ago. Is it true or not?

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

What is better in Iran today from an America First perspective than it was when we started this thing five months ago?

---

Destroyed their Navy and Air Force, reduced their ICBMs 50-65%, made them much poorer than they were which limits terrorism funding abroad, delayed their nuclear ambitions by X.

Softball question.

---

Yet, we're still in the same position we were before.

---

You asked what was better and I gave you receipts.

There are also things that are worse - Hormuz.

---

And the things you said that are better are based solely on what our current administration tells us. I've been hearing that Iran's military has been destroyed for over a year. However, my lying eyes tell me that's not the case.

---

I don't think that you have heard that other than their nuke capability. This fun hasn't been going on for over a year.

It's been reported by media as well as the government from all sides what I've shared. I'm quite sure all of MSM would be saying something different if it wasn't accurate.

---

Ok, let's say that the Trump Administration never claimed we destroyed Iran's military capability until…what the heck…June of this year. June 7th to be precise. That was almost eight weeks ago. Is it true or not?

---

8 weeks <> over 1 year ago. That is incredible goal post moving.