Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

Quote:

---

but as a matter of law, it was illegal.

---

Fake news



Of course democrats are duplicitous. That's known.
That leftists defend Obama & Biden at every turn and want to burn Trump at the stake does not change that it not illegal for a president to take out an American waging war against America in a foreign land.

You think we had to arrest him? Give him Miranda rights? "Just stop"

FobTies said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you want me to answer a question, just ask.

---

Ive got a question, which camp are you in?

1) Finish air strikes, close out, and claim victory like Midnight Hammmer.
2) Follow Israel into regime change to Western friendly.
3) I dont know, Ill decide when Trump decides.
4) Nevermind, I dont answer questions from those that "just ask".

There are very different risk/reward profiles and politcal fallout for 1-3. This thread should be a good faith debate to flesh all that out.

What's scary is that large swaths of Americans are starting to be convinced that opposing a foreign regime change war is a "TDS lib" position to get Trump to end the war prematurely. So many on right who were against such action abroad, are now flipping to cheerleading for following Israel down a path that is anything but "America First".

---

Iran has demonstrated the capability of delivering a missile 4000 km away. That's far enough to reach London. Allow that progression to continue and they become the equivalent of North Korea, capable of attacking the majority of the population centers of the world, but with a far more toxic ideology.

There's a mentality that has grown that all foreign interventions are bad for America. That there's no such thing as a good war. That's just not a rational worldview. It is asymmetric. It allows bad actors to gain power without any counter.

Iran was developing nuclear weapons, they have the capability of delivering them minimally to Israel, likely to large portions of Europe, and eventually the United States. Allow them a nuclear weapon and the present circumstances in the energy markets becomes the persistent circumstances in energy markets whenever Iran decides.


It can be argued whether now was the appropriate time to act, but anyone arguing there's no U.S. interest in it has spent far too much time listening to liars or people that can't zoom out from the long held desires of a nation of 10 million people to see the total impact.

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Wow……hyperbole much?

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Theres hyperbole and then theres this

FobTies said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you want me to answer a question, just ask.

---

Ive got a question, which camp are you in?

1) Finish air strikes, close out, and claim victory like Midnight Hammmer.
2) Follow Israel into regime change to Western friendly.
3) I dont know, Ill decide when Trump decides.
4) Nevermind, I dont answer questions from those that "just ask".

There are very different risk/reward profiles and politcal fallout for 1-3. This thread should be a good faith debate to flesh all that out.

What's scary is that large swaths of Americans are starting to be convinced that opposing a foreign regime change war is a "TDS lib" position to get Trump to end the war prematurely. So many on right who were against such action abroad, are now flipping to cheerleading for following Israel down a path that is anything but "America First".

---

I am not sure those are real camps of people.

1) This was never the plan with Midnight Hammer. The immediate purpose of MH was achieved. Punched them square in the mouth and told them we wanted to see real change. They did not oblige. The mission was successful, it did not end the war because the enemy had not yet had enough. If you remember the Japanese, they needed two thumps and a bomb painted "Bound for Tokyo Beeyotch" before they capitulated.

2) Take the Nick Fuentes **** elsewhere. I am not engaging in that.

3) That's meant as a dig. So not going to answer other Thant I generally agree with Trump's goals and most of his methods.

4) Another dig. Congrats! I will answer legit questions, not personal attacks.

You want to limit the discussion to your preconceived notions and that is NOT what this is for. Why do that?

Many on the right are much more supportive of using our power and vast resources to destroy our enemies quickly regardless of who gets their feelz hurt. We have failed to do that since WWII. Too shy to go to the hilt, to the hair due to how America may be perceived. Then Russia did hold us in check, but both Bushes were too chicken **** to finish the job and both regretted it.

This morning you have the frickin head of the United Nations saying Trump was right to initiate action. Read that again, the Secretary General from Portugal says Trump is right.

We have never "followed" Israel down any path. You may have dreamt that, but it's not reality. The actions taken by Trump are not just American First, they are World Peace, Stability, and Prosperity First. It is flabbergasting people cannot comprehend this.

My camp? America First.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Theres hyperbole and then theres this

---

What do you think happens when you cut off water from 100s of millions of people living in a desert?

Sid Farkas said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barry did not "illegally assassinate" American citizens abroad. We were fighting a war against terrorists and he was a terrorist. He got all the process he was due.


As for power plants, I have yet to hear an explanation as to why that would be a "war crime". Seems to be the same old garbage from leftists and the ruhtahd right

---

Yes. They were terrorists and deserved to be taken out...but as a matter of law, it was illegal.

Face it, Barry broke the law and his followers selectively ignore it when they complain about anything illegal about Trump's execution of the war. just stop.

---

NOTHING that POTUS does in his official duties is ILLEGAL unless Congress votes and convicts through impeachment. Period. The End.

Let's not derail. If you are not clear on that statement, start another thread and I will answer it.

Now, should Barry have been impeached or at least held to great account for those decisions, yes. But if Trump wakes up and determines Melania is a Russian borg sharing secrets, he would be constitutionally correct in choking the lady to death.

B-1 83 said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Wow……hyperbole much?

---

Wait, I was looking forward to some depopulation.

Not even 100 million people in Iran I think.

eater of the list said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Theres hyperbole and then theres this

---

What do you think happens when you cut off water from 100s of millions of people living in a desert?

---

If you are a camel or a cactus you watch your ass. Of course, camels are used to having to cover their six from illegal entry.

Enriching to 60% was negotiation leverage. Other Iranian insiders have admitted they were capable of enriching to 90% and building warheads, but they didnt bc they were so heavily survieled.

The Iranians won't admit they stopped short of building nukes bc they were scared the US would consider that an imminent threat, and blow them up.

But now, the US followed Israel into all out war with them anyway. So all bets are off. Those who hold the guns on the ground in Iran determine which regime holds power. Iran doesn't have a Cajun Navy, they arent Texas ranchers with ATF stamped machine guns.

Claiming victory in a Midnight Hammer 2.0 is the best case scenario at this point for Trump. The alternative is a new ME quagmire at best. At worst, a straw on camel's back leading to a cascade of negative impacts here at home. If that happens, the argument here then becomes who is to blame, other than Trump.

Dear people on the internet who believed and even spread the news that Netanyahu was taken out by the IRGC, you really are a special kind of dumb.

Anyway, he’s back from the dead. Again. 🤣 pic.twitter.com/CNvUJHORJw

— Hillel Fuld (@HilzFuld) March 22, 2026

"Just trust us when we say we're just pushing your buttons and don't intend on building a weapon that can cascade into the end of civilization. We just want sanctions lifted so we can more fully fund our terrorist activities."

Quote:

---

2) Follow Israel into regime change to Western friendly.

---

One has to admire the subtlety of this disingenuous "option".

Imagine thinking Trump, of all people, is so weak or dumb he's being led around by Israel unwittingly.

M

Which camp are you in?

1) Finish air strikes, close out and claim victory like Midnight Hammmer.
2) Regime change to Western friendly.
3) I dont know, Ill decide when Trump decides.
4) I just post to let everyone know America good, Iran bad.

Im in 1. Its productive to determine when discussing any future political fallout. On a political fallout thread.

*edited to remove "follow Israel" in #2. I now realize thats a micro aggression.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

2) Follow Israel into regime change to Western friendly.

---

One has to admire the subtlety of this disingenuous "option".

Imagine thinking Trump, of all people, is so weak or dumb he's being led around by Israel unwittingly.
M

---

Imagine posting a video of Bibi claiming Israel didnt pressure the US, as your proof Israel didn't pressure the US.

Adjust #2 if yall like to "Regime change Iran to friendly because its MAGA to MiGA".

Doesn't matter. You either support the US going down path of regime change #2, or closing out an air strike victory #1. Word it however you like.

hph6203 said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

here's a more specific question to get at my point. as of a day or two ago we still had US flagged vessels stuck In the strait. why would this be tolerated?

---

You're confusing the presence of a plan with the success/achievement of it. War is not a desire and then outcome proposition.

---

It could also be that the Iran plan has several stages and open the SOH is further down on the list. Destroying the missiles and nukes is 1a, killing the Islamic Republic leaders 1b, <insert others in list>, opening the SOH is N. And they haven't gotten to N yet - it's important, but not nearly as important as the others above it in the list.



I'm not saying that's the case, just pointing out it could be a possibility. You can't do EVERYTHING all at once...

Test

Phatbob said:

---

Your schtick of bludgeoning everyone with the same poorly thought out **** over and over got old a long time ago

---

This thread is about political fallout of war with Iran.

Not sure why its offensive to question if people want an air strike victory or all out regime change. Or if they won't know what they want, till Trump decides.

Perfectly in bounds, relevant topic for this thread.

I'm in the camp of a person that can't discern an American interest in an engagement with Iran doesn't get to choose my words for me.

I'm in the camp of we elect leaders to make decisions for us based upon privileged information unavailable to the general public for incredibly valid reasons and we generally can only fully criticize/understand the validity or flaws in their decision making after the fact.

I'm in the camp of saying there's no American interest in a military action against Iran or that a threat from Iran necessarily be imminent in order for that military action to be valid is often operating under an irrational belief that if the U.S. just shrinks from the world the world will operate better, that Muslim extremism is a consequence of U.S. intervention in the Middle East not the reason for it.


My posts on this thread are primarily critiques of the claim that there's no justification for American intervention. That is an extreme claim that doesn't hold up to the shallowest of scrutiny. Whether or not the extent of the justification supports actually intervening is a different argument, and isn't one I'm equipped to answer because I don't have all of the information that went into the decision, but the information I do have access to (admitted to and observable by both sides) minimally supports that an intervention might be in the interest of the United States.


You can oppose the intervention with justification, you can support with justification, but to say there's NO reason for the U.S. to be involved requires ignoring reality. I'm in the I'll judge it when it's over camp.

Appreciate your honesty.

You are basically saying, we are at war, our leaders are in best position to decide where that goes. Its best to assess what was the best option after the fact.

I tried to be succinct when I listed options. But that looks to fall more in the "wait for Trump to decide" bucket. I suppose this crowd likely assumes Trump is given full access to all the best balanced intel, without any undue Israeli influence.

Others like me question how much Israeli influence there is, as they already have decided they want full regime change. I think the US and Trump are better off telling Israel we gave you a bigger Midnight Hammer, thats it, back to our domestic agenda.

We can all live happily together here.

FobTies said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Your schtick of bludgeoning everyone with the same poorly thought out **** over and over got old a long time ago

---

This thread is about political fallout of war with Iran.

Not sure why its offensive to question if people want an air strike victory or all out regime change. Or if they won't know what they want, till Trump decides.

Perfectly in bounds, relevant topic for this thread.

---

You are not discussing, you are repeating the same thing over and over, no matter how often your position is refuted. That is not the purpose of this or any thread here.

Perhaps you could provide a quote where anyone here has refuted my point that stopping with air strikes, short of regime change, is the best course of action.

Thats probably hard to do. Rather than discuss the political fallout of those 2 possible war paths, some here want to make it personal about me. Im not really sure how thats beneficial to anyone....on a thread literally meant to discuss political fallout of various war paths.

FobTies said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you want me to answer a question, just ask.

---

Ive got a question, which camp are you in?

1) Finish air strikes, close out, and claim victory like Midnight Hammmer.
2) Follow Israel into regime change to Western friendly.
3) I dont know, Ill decide when Trump decides.
4) Nevermind, I dont answer questions from those that "just ask".

There are very different risk/reward profiles and politcal fallout for 1-3. This thread should be a good faith debate to flesh all that out.

What's scary is that large swaths of Americans are starting to be convinced that opposing a foreign regime change war is a "TDS lib" position to get Trump to end the war prematurely. So many on right who were against such action abroad, are now flipping to cheerleading for following Israel down a path that is anything but "America First".

---

Your 2) is a leading question akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?"...it's disingenuous...

But, at least it blames the Jews...

B-1 83 said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Wow……hyperbole much?

---

Its what they do. Imagine using the Guardian, a loooooong time commie rag founded in Manchester England in the 1920's, as a news source. Especially on a largely conservative website.

FobTies said:

---

Appreciate your honesty.

You are basically saying, we are at war, our leaders are in best position to decide where that goes. It's best to assess what was the best option after the fact.

---

They are in better position to than you or I am.

Quote:

---

I tried to be succinct when I listed options. But that looks to fall more in the "wait for Trump to decide" bucket. I suppose this crowd likely assumes Trump is given full access to all the best balanced intel, without any undue Israeli influence.

---

No. Trump is in the position to make the decision on when/if to engage, and when/if to disengage and the nature of that is determined by shifting circumstances. I am not in the position to make those decisions, but am in a position to assess validity of their claims based upon available information (Iran's threat is imminent/there is no justification for this are both false statements made by both sides). Meaning I can't say it's a definitively stupid idea to engage in the midst of it, I can only assess whether there's available information that minimally justifies it (there is, they have been enriching uranium, they had by their own claim a 2000 km missile, they have subsequently revealed a 4000 km missile, there is more publicly known justification today than when we started).

Assessing the success/failure of the operation is each individuals after as much information that can be made available is made available after the fact. Trump makes the decisions on how to proceed, you assess as information is available. So far it is neither a success nor a failure in my mind, because the outcome is unknown.

Quote:

---

Others like me question how much Israeli influence there is, as they already have decided they want full regime change. I think the US and Trump are better off telling Israel we gave you a bigger Midnight Hammer, thats it, back to our domestic agenda.

We can all live happily together here.

---

General sentiment is not questioning how much influence Israel has, but rather presuming they're the puppet master. Which is why the talking point is there's no reason for the U.S. to engage, rather than the reasons don't justify the engagement. It's propaganda tactics to discourage people from investigating, because if it is admitted there is some justification then it directs people to assess the justification rather than accept there is none.

Yep. I edited it since, I will edit the original. Sorry. Now people can answer.

eater of the list said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Theres hyperbole and then theres this

---

What do you think happens when you cut off water from 100s of millions of people living in a desert?

---

Bud, thats on the radical Islamic regime you leftest suddenly love so much. This potential water disaster is years in the making and all of a sudden the libbies are worried about it. Pathetic attempt at low grade political points.

FobTies said:

---

Perhaps you could provide a quote where anyone here has refuted my point that stopping with air strikes, short of regime change, is the best course of action.

Thats probably hard to do. Rather than discuss the political fallout of those 2 possible war paths, some here want to make it personal about me. Im not really sure how thats beneficial to anyone....on a thread literally meant to discuss political fallout of various war paths.

---

War is not a choose your own adventure. You don't get to decide to bomb a country and then decide when to stop. You have to earn the right to stop, because they get the opportunity to respond. If Iran is intent on disrupting energy markets until their government falls then the option to stop air strikes prior to regime change isn't on the table. I don't think that's their intention, but they've done plenty of crazy ass stuff so far that makes them look unstable in their decision making.

flown-the-coop said:

---

My camp? America First.

---

I read your entire post 2 times. It wasn't clear if you were for, or against, deploying US assets to support a new western friendly regime change in Iran.

Is it fair to say, you havent yet decided. That you will yield to Trump to make that call, because he has America first motives and best intel?

I think that is the stance of many. No shame in admitting it. Im certainly not trying to belittle anyone by fleshing out positions that different segments of America have on war paths and outcomes.

Phatbob said:

---

FobTies said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Your schtick of bludgeoning everyone with the same poorly thought out **** over and over got old a long time ago

---

This thread is about political fallout of war with Iran.

Not sure why its offensive to question if people want an air strike victory or all out regime change. Or if they won't know what they want, till Trump decides.

Perfectly in bounds, relevant topic for this thread.

---

You are not discussing, you are repeating the same thing over and over, no matter how often your position is refuted. That is not the purpose of this or any thread here.

---

Its literally the same thing, droning on again and again. Dominating through volume yet adding almost nothing

eater of the list said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

eater of the list said:

---

Quote:

---

A statement on state media cited an Iranian military spokesperson as saying any strike on Iran's energy facilities would prompt attacks on US and Israeli energy and assets across the region, specifically information technology and desalination facilities.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-destroy-middle-east-infrastructure-us-energy-sites

If they go through with this, you're talking about 100s of millions of deaths within days.

---

Theres hyperbole and then theres this

---

What do you think happens when you cut off water from 100s of millions of people living in a desert?

---

100s of millions aren't going to die because electricity is temporarily shuttered. Talk about an appeal to fear fallacy

FobTies said:

---

Perhaps you could provide a quote where anyone here has refuted my point that stopping with air strikes, short of regime change, is the best course of action.

Thats probably hard to do. Rather than discuss the political fallout of those 2 possible war paths, some here want to make it personal about me. Im not really sure how thats beneficial to anyone....on a thread literally meant to discuss political fallout of various war paths.

---

Stopping air strikes with no regime change means the psychos will retain control. We will then be right here in short order. This job must be completed now. If that means American boots on the ground, then that is what it means. A world that includes a nuclear armed Iran with this group of psychos still in charge is a danger to everyone.