Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I get you, but by blockading any ship coming from or heading to an Iranian port, we're also causing pain for fence sitters (eg China).

In any case, my main concern is it looks to me like we're in a situation where we can cause Iran pain, but Iran can plunge the whole world into a recession. All Iran has to do to maintain that ability is survive; their military can continue to be completely feckless so long as a few drones and missiles work per day.

What's the plausible path to getting from those position to some sort of W? The Iranian regime is proud and maniacally idealistic, and we just killed their leader, possibly his successor, and who knows how many other leaders. How do we get them to accept something they don't like?

---

Not only "how", but "who" is a related problem and possibly a bigger one. The politicos don't have the guns and aren't running the missile and nuke programs. The control over the military assets and operations is dispersed among many different military heads.

Who can we make a deal with that can actually bind everyone and keep them all in line? We can find political leadership willing to make a deal, but it might not be worth the paper it's written on. Might not be anyway, but this situation is even more problematic.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Can somebody describe to me a plausible path to an acceptable outcome? It looks to me like we gambled on quick regime collapse, didn't get it, and now find ourselves stuck in a position where all the opposition has to do is not collapse + launch a few missiles in order to force us to accept a worse situation than we had before. We're trying to salvage it by blockading the strait and causing pain for Iran and the whole world, but I don't see how we go from that to a "win" (whatever "win" means in this situation).

---

Regime change was not one of our objectives. Would it be nice, yes and would be a huge win for us but it was not an objective we had

The only objective we have not accomplished is getting the enriched Uranium, which we are now trying to do with Negotiations. If that does not work, Trump is ready to do what is necessary to get it accomplished

Iran blocking the strait is a side problem and they are trying to use it as leverage in negotiations. We are taking that leverage away by blocking their ships from getting through

DTP02 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I get you, but by blockading any ship coming from or heading to an Iranian port, we're also causing pain for fence sitters (eg China).

In any case, my main concern is it looks to me like we're in a situation where we can cause Iran pain, but Iran can plunge the whole world into a recession. All Iran has to do to maintain that ability is survive; their military can continue to be completely feckless so long as a few drones and missiles work per day.

What's the plausible path to getting from those position to some sort of W? The Iranian regime is proud and maniacally idealistic, and we just killed their leader, possibly his successor, and who knows how many other leaders. How do we get them to accept something they don't like?

---

Not only "how", but "who" is a related problem and possibly a bigger one. The politicos don't have the guns and aren't running the missile and nuke programs. The control over the military assets and operations is dispersed among many different military heads.

Who can we make a deal with that can actually bind everyone and keep them all in line? We can find political leadership willing to make a deal, but it might not be worth the paper it's written on. Might not be anyway, but this situation is even more problematic.

---

Um there has not been an attack in awhile, if there was no one in charge of their military than I think there would have been attacks by now

Mojtaba Khamenei is their leader.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Abbas Araghchi, Abdolnaser Hemmati, Ali Akbar Ahmadian are the ones negotiating.

"Many different military heads" - False. Ahmad Vahidi is the leader of the IRGC and has been since March 1st and I am sure is well aware of what is being negotiated

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I get you, but by blockading any ship coming from or heading to an Iranian port, we're also causing pain for fence sitters (eg China).

In any case, my main concern is it looks to me like we're in a situation where we can cause Iran pain, but Iran can plunge the whole world into a recession. All Iran has to do to maintain that ability is survive; their military can continue to be completely feckless so long as a few drones and missiles work per day.

What's the plausible path to getting from those position to some sort of W? The Iranian regime is proud and maniacally idealistic, and we just killed their leader, possibly his successor, and who knows how many other leaders. How do we get them to accept something they don't like?

---

China is by no means a fence sitter in all this. They are knee deep in it. Their "neutrality" is a ruse put on for public consumption.

Keyno said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Keyno said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

---

Iran has never claimed the intent to build a bomb

---

Wow.

This is a nation that has been the driving force behind much of the world-wide terrorist events since 1979. This is a nation that is known for wanting death for its primary enemies, the US and Israel.

Are you trying to say that because they may or may not have made a claim regarding their intentions with all that uranium, that they really didn't want a bomb?

Of course these psychos want a bomb. And like the Germans and Japanese in WWII, they will use it if they get it.

---

You can speculate intent if you'd like. I was responding to YouBets claim that they have openly admitted intent to build a nuke, which is an incorrect claim. On the contrary, they have persistently denied the intent to build a nuke since 2003 I believe.

The Iranians are not backward goat herders. They are actually a pretty intelligent people if you look at average IQ. If they actually intended to build nukes, they could have done so many years ago. No, Mossad was not thwarting them at exactly the right time over the decades.

---

Good gawd. There are two different peoples and cultures in Iran. One is intelligent and peaceful. The other is the radical Muslims who are the regime and herds goats backwards.

AGHouston11 said:

---

So what did Vance mean yesterday when he said the uranium is buried after midnight hammer? So we knew this the whole time?

---

Good gawd. The regime was trying to dig it up. Keep up, homes.

2026NCAggies said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I get you, but by blockading any ship coming from or heading to an Iranian port, we're also causing pain for fence sitters (eg China).

In any case, my main concern is it looks to me like we're in a situation where we can cause Iran pain, but Iran can plunge the whole world into a recession. All Iran has to do to maintain that ability is survive; their military can continue to be completely feckless so long as a few drones and missiles work per day.

What's the plausible path to getting from those position to some sort of W? The Iranian regime is proud and maniacally idealistic, and we just killed their leader, possibly his successor, and who knows how many other leaders. How do we get them to accept something they don't like?

---

Not only "how", but "who" is a related problem and possibly a bigger one. The politicos don't have the guns and aren't running the missile and nuke programs. The control over the military assets and operations is dispersed among many different military heads.

Who can we make a deal with that can actually bind everyone and keep them all in line? We can find political leadership willing to make a deal, but it might not be worth the paper it's written on. Might not be anyway, but this situation is even more problematic.

---

Um there has not been an attack in awhile, if there was no one in charge of their military than I think there would have been attacks by now

Mojtaba Khamenei is their leader.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Abbas Araghchi, Abdolnaser Hemmati, Ali Akbar Ahmadian are the ones negotiating.

"Many different military heads" - False. Ahmad Vahidi is the leader of the IRGC and has been since March 1st and I am sure is well aware of what is being negotiated

---

Your characterization states a level of communication, cooperation, quite possibly consciousness, and clear hierarchy among the Iranian side that doesn't exist by all accounts.

Khamanei is badly injured and may not be participating at all. Vahidi has harshly criticized Ghalibaf for even sitting down with the US. And the military C&C was dispersed into dozens of discrete and largely autonomous units pursuant to their mosaic defense strategy.

The difficulty in negotiating with the various parties is not new news. It's been a thing since the first decap strikes.

Phatbob said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Keyno said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

---

Iran has never claimed the intent to build a bomb

---

Wow.

This is a nation that has been the driving force behind much of the world-wide terrorist events since 1979. This is a nation that is known for wanting death for its primary enemies, the US and Israel.

Are you trying to say that because they may or may not have made a claim regarding their intentions with all that uranium, that they really didn't want a bomb?

Of course these psychos want a bomb. And like the Germans and Japanese in WWII, they will use it if they get it.

---

You can speculate intent if you'd like. I was responding to YouBets claim that they have openly admitted intent to build a nuke, which is an incorrect claim. On the contrary, they have persistently denied the intent to build a nuke since 2003 I believe.

The Iranians are not backward goat herders. They are actually a pretty intelligent people if you look at average IQ. If they actually intended to build nukes, they could have done so many years ago. No, Mossad was not thwarting them at exactly the right time over the decades.

---

It's amazing how many pretzels you can contort into depending on the point of Iran you are trying to dismiss, and so many of them are mutually exclusive.

So Iran is perfectly capable of developing nukes anytime they want, but they haven't technically said they were, so obviously they weren't, and the fact that they were enriching uranium past the point of any use OTHER than nukes makes no difference... None of those things jive together with any of your assertions that Iran is just a peaceful country minding its own business when those dastardly Jews drug us into a war with them.

---

Yes- they are capable of building a nuclear weapon and could have done so many years ago if they were actively trying to. Iran was maintaining a nuclear threshold state intentionally, as a security strategy. (Edit- I mean they WERE capable. I have no idea if they still are after the strikes began, although Witkoff claims they told him they were)

Iran is a member of the NPT, which ALLOWS enrichment. There is no evidence they had a nuclear weapons program or were actively building a nuke up to the point that the US/Israel attacked them and killed the old Ayatollah. I have no clue if the new Ayatollah is maintaining the old fatwa against producing a nuclear weapon- considering the security state of his country. They have never stated an intention to build a nuke, as this board often erroneously claims. As of now, however, they have not pulled out of the NPT.

I did not assert that Iran is just a peaceful country minding its own business. They are an enemy and regional competitor to Israel, and both countries have been openly hostile to one another for many decade, which is why Israel has been trying to get us to bomb them for many decades.

BREAKING 🔴

Spokesperson for Irans military:

We will move to disrupt shipping in the Red Sea if the U.S. blockade on Iranian vessels continues. pic.twitter.com/6Bp0ZPbe1j

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) April 15, 2026

https://t.co/JJ4jyKLI1u pic.twitter.com/dZbPZmdBeq

— Demetri (@AsiaLens) April 15, 2026

Posting in response to the dummies claiming no one wants to join the military under Trump and fight in endless wars

HISTORIC RECRUITING NUMBERS CONTINUE…

Just learned the @usairforce & @USSpaceForce met their FY26 recruiting goals 5 months early. Ahead of last year’s record pace.

Both @USArmy & @USMC soon to follow.

Young Americans surging to President Trump’s @DeptofWar.

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) April 14, 2026

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I get you, but by blockading any ship coming from or heading to an Iranian port, we're also causing pain for fence sitters (eg China).

In any case, my main concern is it looks to me like we're in a situation where we can cause Iran pain, but Iran can plunge the whole world into a recession. All Iran has to do to maintain that ability is survive; their military can continue to be completely feckless so long as a few drones and missiles work per day.

What's the plausible path to getting from those position to some sort of W? The Iranian regime is proud and maniacally idealistic, and we just killed their leader, possibly his successor, and who knows how many other leaders. How do we get them to accept something they don't like?

---

As a personal fence sitter on us being involved in this entire operation, I think many people would respond to us causing pain for China with the answer of, "And?". Frankly, they needed a pop in the nose with their funding and sourcing of fentanyl via Mexico and South America. If they get hurt in this, then good...f'em.

Regarding the strait, the fact that Iran can plunge the whole word into recession by blocking it as big of an issue as them getting nukes IMO. You can't let them have that kind of blackmail power over the globe. Regardless right or wrong of how we got here (sunk cost at this point), you have to stop that.

Ideally, everyone figures out alternate, viable paths that moot Iran's power but that will take time. In the meantime, blockading the strait is actually a good outcome if everyone steps back and looks at it objectively. If kinetic actions are over (we shall see), all we are really looking at now is a police action that is totally justified at this point.

interesting info here. the US won't be able to load all the VLCCs that quickly heading our way. something around 60 on their way, but we can only export a few million barrels per day as of jan. so this is good for the oil companies, but the market delays and impacts of loading (and then getting to its destination) is going to have ripple effects.

TRM said:

---

BREAKING 🔴

Spokesperson for Irans military:

We will move to disrupt shipping in the Red Sea if the U.S. blockade on Iranian vessels continues. pic.twitter.com/6Bp0ZPbe1j

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) April 15, 2026

---

So Zelenskyy was beating the drums on Russia was providing targeting information without any proof or analysis. The MSM & Europe ate it up without questioning. Now more information is coming out and that might have been pure Ukraine propaganda:

Quote:

---

Iran secretly got its hands on a Chinese spy satellite to target American bases in the Middle East during the war, leaked military documents revealed.
Following its launch to space in 2024, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had acquired Beijing's TEE-01B satellite, tasking it to monitor key US military sites in the region, the Financial Times reported.
Time-stamped records show some of the images were taken last month before and after Iranian drone and missile attacks on those very bases.
The logs indicate that the satellite, which was built by the Earth Eye Chinese company, had taken images of the Prince Sultan Air Base, in Saudi Arabia, on March 13, 14, and 15.
It was during that same timespan that Iran struck the American base, damaging five US Air Force refueling planes.

---

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/04/15/new-report-beijing-satellite-intel-helped-iran-strike-us-air-bases-n2201337

Targeting info for our radars is what I'm wondering about. This doesn't disprove Russian involvement

LOLOL.

Putting this on repeat because a) it’s hilarious b) it’s true c) it’s applicable to almost any national security, foreign policy issue pic.twitter.com/D1LxuJKjgP

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 14, 2026

Quote:

---

"We certainly don't want the French anywhere near these negotiations; we'd like to keep the French as far away as possible from pretty much everything, particularly when it comes to peace negotiations," Leiter responded. 'They're not needed. They're not a positive influence, particularly when it comes to Lebanon."

That is so on target and so well-earned. Sounds like everyone has France's number. We saw how our "ally" France wouldn't even let us fly over their airspace, appeared to cut some kind of deal with Iran to let a French-connected ship through the Strait of Hormuz when Iran was trying to control it, and blocked an effort by Bahrain to get a resolution through the United Nations to help open up the Strait by means that could include force.

---

Sacre bleau!

GAC06 said:

---

Targeting info for our radars is what I'm wondering about. This doesn't disprove Russian involvement

---

But where is Zelenskyy and Ukraine proof? I'm sure that you know by now that Ukraine is very good at propaganda and that making a claim like that very early on without proof has the appearance of potential Ukraine propaganda.

I didn't say what Zelenskyy said is true. I said what you posted doesn't disprove it.

Also, Zelenskyy isn't the only source of the claim that Russia has been aiding Iran with intelligence.

https://www.wsj.com/world/why-russia-is-stepping-up-its-support-for-an-embattled-iran-e3dcf8ee

GAC06 said:

---

I didn't say what Zelenskyy said is true. I said what you posted doesn't disprove it.

Also, Zelenskyy isn't the only source of the claim that Russia has been aiding Iran with intelligence.

https://www.wsj.com/world/why-russia-is-stepping-up-its-support-for-an-embattled-iran-e3dcf8ee

---

As an old Cold Warrior I just assume that Russia would pass targeting information to their ally. But why is Zelenskyy out there screaming it? I'm sure our military knows if the Russians or China gave Iran targeting information. If the US doesn't know then I pretty sure Israel might be able to figure it out.

Quote:

---

But why is Zelenskyy out there screaming it?

---

Is this a serious question? Ukraine is being invaded by Russia.

There is a board thread for the Ukraine war, please take it there.

This is so awesome. France is such a has been, irrelevant player now.

Trump's baby is the Abraham Accords and the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. As long as Iran was funding terrorist in that region, the billion dollars committed to the Gaza development was at risk and that is one of MAIN reasons Trump agreed with this war with Iran at this time.

The Iranians weak response to last summers bombing indicated they could be had by the air and by the sea without committing large movements of ground troops but that is another subject and not what I am to predict.

The final peace agreement to end this war will require Iran to sign the Abraham Accords, in return, all sanctions against Iran will be lifted, all frozen assets will be returned. Once this done, the Saudis and others in the Middle East will also sign the peace agreement with Israel.

A caveat to all this is a form of a two state solution in which the Palestinians get the West Bank, an area that is currently Palestinians 5 to 1 but under the authority of the Jew.


A few months go Trump told Israel no more settlements in the West Bank as this has been the plan all along.

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." Its the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

It truly is Orwellian that this simple observation is considered controversial, "antisemitic", or "traitorous" in today's society.

The coalition against the left is cooked. There are woke mind virus Dem loyalists, and pro-Israel Trump loyalists now left holding the bag for the duopoly. This will prove to be the most impactful political fallout of Operation AIPAC Fury. More than ever, there is now a large swath of voters looking for an alternative option. If the Libertarian party can get itself together and put out a charismatic viral candidate, they will have their best chance in decades.

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." Its the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

It truly is Orwellian that this simple observation is considered controversial, "antisemitic", or "traitorous" in today's society.

The coalition against the left is cooked. There are woke mind virus Dem loyalists, and pro-Israel Trump loyalists now left holding the bag for the duopoly. This will prove to be the most impactful political fallout of Operation AIPAC Fury. More than ever, there is now a large swath of voters looking for an alternative option. If the Libertarian party can get itself together and put out a charismatic viral candidate, they will have their best chance in decades.

---

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." Its the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

It truly is Orwellian that this simple observation is considered controversial, "antisemitic", or "traitorous" in today's society.

The coalition against the left is cooked. There are woke mind virus Dem loyalists, and pro-Israel Trump loyalists now left holding the bag for the duopoly. This will prove to be the most impactful political fallout of Operation AIPAC Fury. More than ever, there is now a large swath of voters looking for an alternative option. If the Libertarian party can get itself together and put out a charismatic viral candidate, they will have their best chance in decades.

---

So, 1% chance instead of 0%?

I realize this thread is focused on the Iran War, but you have to look at this more broadly. Your concerns on Iran in a vacuum are valid but thinking more strategically you have to factor everything else going on: VZ, Cuba, Iran, Malaccan Strait, Greenland. It's all part of a larger strategy for those paying attention.

more abysmal failures according to the dumb leftists

"I will be inviting the Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, and the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun, to the White House... Both sides want to see PEACE, and I believe that will happen, quickly!" - President Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸 https://t.co/zMspAjw3PD pic.twitter.com/KFipIMmFOD

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 16, 2026

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." It's the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

---

It's literally just "Saddam has WMDs" part 2. It was fake then and it's fake now. But people trip over themselves to fall for it again as usual

Keyno said:

---

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." It's the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

---

It's literally just "Saddam has WMDs" part 2. It was fake then and it's fake now. But people trip over themselves to fall for it again as usual

---

Are we just openly lying now? Iran told our negotiators how much enriched uranium they had. Their intentions were clear and their reckless launching of missles at anyone and everyone showed how dangerous they are to the world. You don't have to believe it is our fight, but it isn't fake.

Keyno said:

---

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." It's the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

---

It's literally just "Saddam has WMDs" part 2. It was fake then and it's fake now. But people trip over themselves to fall for it again as usual

---

For argument's sake, what will you say if this all works out in our favor and in a more stable and peaceful ME?

Keyno said:

---

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has proven you can justify a new ME war of choice, if you can simply convince enough people the alternative is inevitable nuclear annihilation. "Can't let evil Muslims get nukes." It's the fail proof fallback arguement that never expires. You can use it even after you declare you "obliterated their nuclear capability."

---

It's literally just "Saddam has WMDs" part 2. It was fake then and it's fake now. But people trip over themselves to fall for it again as usual

---

So the Iranians lied when they made the claim of how much enriched uranium they had? We should have just looked at GWB and said, "nah, not this time". And the world goes on - right up until the moment that an Iranian nuke exploded over Tel Aviv or NYC. No thanks.

5Amp said:

---

Trump's baby is the Abraham Accords and the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. As long as Iran was funding terrorist in that region, the billion dollars committed to the Gaza development was at risk and that is one of MAIN reasons Trump agreed with this war with Iran at this time.

The Iranians weak response to last summers bombing indicated they could be had by the air and by the sea without committing large movements of ground troops but that is another subject and not what I am to predict.

The final peace agreement to end this war will require Iran to sign the Abraham Accords, in return, all sanctions against Iran will be lifted, all frozen assets will be returned. Once this done, the Saudis and others in the Middle East will also sign the peace agreement with Israel.

A caveat to all this is a form of a two state solution in which the Palestinians get the West Bank, an area that is currently Palestinians 5 to 1 but under the authority of the Jew.


A few months go Trump told Israel no more settlements in the West Bank as this has been the plan all along.

---

The terrain of Iran really made a large scale invasion out of the question.

Quote:

---

The War Powers Act, officially known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, is a federal law that limits the U.S. president's ability to engage military forces without congressional approval. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and restricts military engagement to 60 days without congressional authorization

---

When is the 60 day mark for Trump have to go to Congress to fulfill the obligations of the War Powers Act?

April 28, 2026, right? (12 days from now)

Or did I miss Congress voting on continuing this?

Dungeon Crawler Carl said:

---

Quote:

---

The War Powers Act, officially known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, is a federal law that limits the U.S. president's ability to engage military forces without congressional approval. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and restricts military engagement to 60 days without congressional authorization

---

When is the 60 day mark for Trump have to go to Congress to fulfill the obligations of the War Powers Act?

April 28, 2026, right? (12 days from now)

Or did I miss Congress voting on continuing this?

---

Continuing the waiting?