FWTXAg said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

It is ashamed that there is so much oil in the Middle East, otherwise we wouldn't give a **** about those people over there.

---

It's a shame oil has so little to do with this situation.

To peg it on oil ignores reality. But if it makes you accept the actions as necessary, then believe what you want to.

Thank God for Donald John Trump.

---

Then why don't we leave? Trump already has declared victory so what is left? Maybe oil flowing (or not) flowing through the strait. Do you think it is worth sending thousands of young Americans into Iran?

---

He has not declared victory. You watching Karoline Leavitts presser? She's answering your questions.

Securing the Strait of Trump is an objective so hostilities will not stop until all objectives are achieved.

I really don't know how people simply cannot grasp that.

Boots on the ground is a meaningless discussion. We have likely continually had "boots on the ground" in Iran.

How many troops are too many?

We are not sending 1,000s of troops into Iran… unless it becomes necessary.

Listen to Keane and Leavitt. If you still have questions, come back and maybe we can help you understand it better.

---

BS on Trump not saying we already won. And tell me the point of opening the Strait if it is not about oil?

---

Because Donald John Trump is all-knowing and a super Patriot and God sent him to save us.

Thank Donald John Trump for Donald John Trump!

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

It is ashamed that there is so much oil in the Middle East, otherwise we wouldn't give a **** about those people over there.

---

It's a shame oil has so little to do with this situation.

To peg it on oil ignores reality. But if it makes you accept the actions as necessary, then believe what you want to.

Thank God for Donald John Trump.

---

Then why don't we leave? Trump already has declared victory so what is left? Maybe oil flowing (or not) flowing through the strait. Do you think it is worth sending thousands of young Americans into Iran?

---

He has not declared victory. You watching Karoline Leavitts presser? She's answering your questions.

Securing the Strait of Trump is an objective so hostilities will not stop until all objectives are achieved.

I really don't know how people simply cannot grasp that.

Boots on the ground is a meaningless discussion. We have likely continually had "boots on the ground" in Iran.

How many troops are too many?

We are not sending 1,000s of troops into Iran… unless it becomes necessary.

Listen to Keane and Leavitt. If you still have questions, come back and maybe we can help you understand it better.

---

BS on Trump not saying we already won. And tell me the point of opening the Strait if it is not about oil?

---

BS on Trump not saying we already won - Have we stopped hostilities? No. Have Iran surrendered? No. Is Trump saying we are up by 100 points with 1 minute left and no timeouts so "we have won"? Yep, typical Trump. Folks look foolish when they try and claim some bizarre falsehood on what Trump said vs what you think he meant and what he actually meant. Since you seem to not understand Trump, he means we are trouncing them and total victory is imminent and regardless we will not stop until it is achieved. Make sense?

For the Strait of Trump, in addition to O&G products, its is a huge transit for fertilizer and general cargo / shipping container transit. It's a key component in China's Belt & Road Initiative linking to rail lines that were recently upgraded and expanded.

Any other things I can help clarify for you?

And thank God for Donald John Trump understanding these things.

---

AggieCVQ said:

---

What is the current US objective in Iran?

Literally give me specific, objective measurables and deadlines.

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

It is ashamed that there is so much oil in the Middle East, otherwise we wouldn't give a **** about those people over there.

---

It's a shame oil has so little to do with this situation.

To peg it on oil ignores reality. But if it makes you accept the actions as necessary, then believe what you want to.

Thank God for Donald John Trump.

---

Then why don't we leave? Trump already has declared victory so what is left? Maybe oil flowing (or not) flowing through the strait. Do you think it is worth sending thousands of young Americans into Iran?

---

He has not declared victory. You watching Karoline Leavitts presser? She's answering your questions.

Securing the Strait of Trump is an objective so hostilities will not stop until all objectives are achieved.

I really don't know how people simply cannot grasp that.

Boots on the ground is a meaningless discussion. We have likely continually had "boots on the ground" in Iran.

How many troops are too many?

We are not sending 1,000s of troops into Iran… unless it becomes necessary.

Listen to Keane and Leavitt. If you still have questions, come back and maybe we can help you understand it better.

---

BS on Trump not saying we already won. And tell me the point of opening the Strait if it is not about oil?

---

BS on Trump not saying we already won - Have we stopped hostilities? No. Have Iran surrendered? No. Is Trump saying we are up by 100 points with 1 minute left and no timeouts so "we have won"? Yep, typical Trump. Folks look foolish when they try and claim some bizarre falsehood on what Trump said vs what you think he meant and what he actually meant. Since you seem to not understand Trump, he means we are trouncing them and total victory is imminent and regardless we will not stop until it is achieved. Make sense?

For the Strait of Trump, in addition to O&G products, its is a huge transit for fertilizer and general cargo / shipping container transit. It's a key component in China's Belt & Road Initiative linking to rail lines that were recently upgraded and expanded.

Any other things I can help clarify for you?

And thank God for Donald John Trump understanding these things.

---

Trust me I do not nee help from you to understand anything

---

Seems you do since you grossly misrepresented what Trump was saying. I am not just helping you but others understand Trump speak since after a decade many people have trouble with it.

---

Honestly I am not trying to be a dick to you, but a word of advice is just think before you post. It would probably benefit you greatly. I will disengage you from here on out.

---

Keyno said:

---

In other news- Trump comes out on Truth Social today and threatens to blow up Iran's energy infrastructure- electricity plants, oil wells, desalination plants. These are civilian targets and would be considered war crimes. Some may even describe these acts as "terrorist".

So what even are we doing here? We have to become the terrorists to defeat the terrorists?

---

BREAKING: Last night, Iran crossed the line that oil never crosses. It struck water.

An Iranian attack hit Kuwait’s Doha West Power and Water Desalination Station, killing an Indian worker and causing significant material damage. Kuwait depends on desalination for ninety percent… pic.twitter.com/ge4Ki1ujak

— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) March 30, 2026

Keyno said:

---

In other news- Trump comes out on Truth Social today and threatens to blow up Iran's energy infrastructure- electricity plants, oil wells, desalination plants. These are civilian targets and would be considered war crimes. Some may even describe these acts as "terrorist".

So what even are we doing here? We have to become the terrorists to defeat the terrorists?

---

Keyno said:

---

In other news- Trump comes out on Truth Social today and threatens to blow up Iran's energy infrastructure- electricity plants, oil wells, desalination plants. These are civilian targets and would be considered war crimes. Some may even describe these acts as "terrorist".

So what even are we doing here? We have to become the terrorists to defeat the terrorists?

---

Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 07:26 AM EST 03.30.26 pic.twitter.com/DURzVecWdJ

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) March 30, 2026

Quote:

---

Transcript: Karim Sadjadpour, Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," March 29, 2026
Updated on: March 29, 2026 / 1:57 PM EDT / CBS News

Add CBS News on Google
The following is the transcript of the interview with Iran policy analyst Karim Sadjadpour and former CENTCOM commander and CBS News contributor and retired Gen. Frank McKenzie that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on March 29, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN: --snip-- Iran, so far, hasn't responded to the 15 points the Trump administration put forward, and Rubio said he's not even sure who they'd be negotiating with. So what is the reality of who we're negotiating with, and are we even negotiating

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, Margaret, this is a regime, Islamic Republic of Iran, which came to power in 1979 taking American diplomats hostage. And now they think they have the global economy hostage, and they're fighting a war of survival. They're also fighting a war of revenge against President Trump. So at the moment, they don't feel compelled to compromise, it seems, because the trend lines are, oil prices are going up, American public opinion about the war is going down, and many of these leaders that we're hoping to negotiate with are right now living underground, fighting for their lives.

MARGARET BRENNAN: --snip-- the Houthis, over the weekend, they jumped into the fight and fired on Israel. Do you think that this is a game changer, given that they could not just disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, but another passageway through the Red Sea?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, I don't think it will be a game changer. Their ability to attack Israel is quite limited. Yes, they will have the ability to further stop slow traffic through the Bab el Mandeb, going up into the Suez Canal. We have the ability to go down there and prevent that. It will require additional resources, but we have those resources, and we can certainly do it if that becomes necessary.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the President has made clear that he needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. His language has been contradictory on some of these points as to who's going to do it and when. What's the military reality of making it passable?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: We're on our way to doing that now, Margaret. This is part of a plan that's been in existence for many years. What we're doing right now is we're reducing Iranian ability to target ships in the strait through their short range missiles, their drones and other activities. We do that by maintaining air superiority over southern Iran on a 24/7 basis, looking for where these missiles are and striking them relentlessly. Once we reduce those to a very low level, then you'll be able to go in, if necessary, sweep for mines. I'm not certain they put mines in the water yet. I predict eventually they will. It's their nature, but we have the ability to do this. We're on, we're on plan. I'll be honest with you. Margaret, I've simulated this many years in many positions at Central Command, we're a little further along than we would have expected to be at this point in all the simulations that I've seen.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm going to guess in your simulations, you looked at what would happen to the Strait of Hormuz, even though the President said no one ever thought of it, you thought of it, didn't you?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: The U.S. military thinks of a lot of things. We certainly have thought of the Strait of Hormuz out of Kharg Island. Think of all those islands on the southern littoral of Iran.

--snip--

MARGARET BRENNAN: General, do you agree with that assessment? I mean, it does seem that the Trump administration is acknowledging the regime will stay if they are at least offering to negotiate with the regime so it would allow for them to remain in power.

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: The primary goal of Iranian statecraft, Margaret, is survival of the regime. Back in the late 1980s they signed a truce with Iraq when things were going very bad for Iran. In Iranian history is known as drinking from the poison chalice. I believe that they will break. I believe that they will come to terms. And it may be an imperfect solution, but I think it would be one that would include opening the Strait of Hormuz, possibly some deal on the missiles, on the missile systems, the nuclear program is certainly a possibility, but I believe eventually they'll make a deal. But we need to keep the pressure up. We need to continue to press them very hard, because that is, in fact, the only thing they will respond to.

MARGARET BRENNAN: --snip-- So this doesn't sound like this is a short term project. This sounds like even if combat ends, we're going to be talking about a military presence in the region for some time. Am I wrong?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, you could be right. Let's see what happens. I think a negotiated- there are two ways the Strait of Hormuz can be opened. It can be opened if the Iranians negotiate with us to open it. And of course, that's the desired solution. The other solution would be, if they don't, and they decide to fight, we can open the strait under that condition too. The second condition is obviously a lot more intensive in terms of ships and equipment that would have to bring into the region, and yes, help from our allies would certainly be, would be very useful in that case. We have the ability to open the Strait of Hormuz under any condition that the Iranians choose to exist under.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Does it appear to you that one of the contingencies that the White House is planning for, given that they're continuing to move troops into the region, and you have these Marines who are moving into the area as well. Are they preparing for a ground troop presence? And what does that look like?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Margaret, for many years, we've considered options along the southern coast of Iran, seizing islands, seizing small bases, typically raids. And a raid is an operation with a planned withdrawal. You're not going to stay. But some of those islands you could seize and hold, that would have a couple effects. First of all, it would be profoundly humiliating for Iran, and would give us great weight in negotiations. The second, the example of Kharg Island, which everyone talks about. If you seize Kharg Island, you really can shut down the Iranian oil economy completely. And the beauty of seizing it is you're not destroying it. You're retaining it for further use by the global economy and possibly for return to Iran under certain conditions. So all of these things, this is not back of the, these are not back of the envelope calculations. These are things we've been working on for many years, and I think we're right to threaten the entire littoral to hold all these options out there. And I think the President's message is spot on when he talks about all these alternatives.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But can he achieve his goals without ground troops, which is what the Secretary of State says. And how does this end? How do you call this a success?

GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE: Sure, I think a success looks like the Strait of Hormuz is open. We get some kind of deal on the ballistic missile program, some kind of deal on the nuclear program. That's probably about as much as you could hope for. But I think they're very discreet things that, for me, at least from an operational military perspective, would be, would look like victory. I believe all of those things are actually within our grasp. We just need to continue. Iran will ultimately respond to the use of force. They know and understand it, perhaps better than we have, we have in the past. This administration is willing to use force. Other administrations have been thoroughly deterred by Iran. President Trump is not deterred by Iran --snip--

---

AggieCVQ said:

---

I read that entire thing and the it says the objectives are pretty much:

"the Strait of Hormuz is open"
"some kind of deal on the ballistic missile program"
"some kind of deal on the nuclear program"

But those are MILITARY OBJECTIVES NOT casus belli...

This is like saying (using the analogy earlier)

We need to

1. Take Big Ben
2. Cut off Bean Supply
3. Make London Bridge fall down.

But not explaining WHY you are in a war with Britain in the first place!

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Did we accomplish regime change in Afghanistan?
Why is this different?

---

Keyno said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Keyno said:

---

In other news- Trump comes out on Truth Social today and threatens to blow up Iran's energy infrastructure- electricity plants, oil wells, desalination plants. These are civilian targets and would be considered war crimes. Some may even describe these acts as "terrorist".

So what even are we doing here? We have to become the terrorists to defeat the terrorists?

---

I remember when this war was about liberating the people of Iran.

---

Right? It's a great plan. We take out their electricity and clean drinking water- killing who knows how many scores of them- and that way they will blame their own government and overthrow it for some reason

---

AggieCVQ said:

---

What is the current US objective in Iran?

Literally give me specific, objective measurables and deadlines.

---

Keyno said:

---

A counter to this- If the US "special relationship" with Israel is just about us defending Israel if they're attacked, but Israel denying to send ground troops when we invade their enemies, then that's not a very good arrangement.

That's a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States.

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Keyno said:

---

In other news- Trump comes out on Truth Social today and threatens to blow up Iran's energy infrastructure- electricity plants, oil wells, desalination plants. These are civilian targets and would be considered war crimes. Some may even describe these acts as "terrorist".

So what even are we doing here? We have to become the terrorists to defeat the terrorists?

---

I remember when this war was about liberating the people of Iran.

---

AggieCVQ said:

---

Isnt entering a war halfway across the world the exact same thing?!

Like what?

We dont do such things so lets deport all Muslims and bomb Iran?

Wtf

---

bobbranco said:

---

AggieCVQ said:

---

What is the current US objective in Iran?

Literally give me specific, objective measurables and deadlines.

---

Why disclose war plans? You want our countrymen to die?

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Obviously the objectives and messaging on this war has been terrible since the beginning.

---