Iran War Update

[TheMissingBand]

18 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

If you weren’t committed enough to send ground troops, you weren’t committed enough to the purpose to start the conflict.

Issue is, POTUS knew he wouldn't get public, or Congressional support for ground troops. So, he tried an end-around. Without public support, success will be hard to achieve. Success in this endeavor required eliminating the IRGC, and affecting regime/cultural change.

I keep repeating myself there's a reason why conflicts are supposed to be difficult to start.

I think that the diplomats and generals have all known for decades that Iran isn’t an easy puzzle to solve.  Trump believed that he could boldly hit them harder than anybody else has and they’d roll over… and he had no plan B.  My thought is that there’s no way to proclaim victory and leave-all that’s been done is an emboldening of Iran.  
 

And if he’d asked for congressional approval, he’d have gotten it because R congressmen won’t speak out against him or they’ll get done like Massie or MTG. 
 

But Trump said it best… “I can destroy any country I want to.” Rs should have let him know that isn’t the case. 

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, OlDawg said:

If you weren’t committed enough to send ground troops, you weren’t committed enough to the purpose to start the conflict.

Issue is, POTUS knew he wouldn't get public, or Congressional support for ground troops. So, he tried an end-around. Without public support, success will be hard to achieve. Success in this endeavor required eliminating the IRGC, and affecting regime/cultural change.

I keep repeating myself there's a reason why conflicts are supposed to be difficult to start.

I'm not giving up that this will work to America's benefit.  While Trump is the spokesman and final decision maker, there are lots of military planners making the calls. 

[Porter]

17 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm not giving up that this will work to America's benefit.  While Trump is the spokesman and final decision maker, there are lots of military planners making the calls. 

Hope it works because The Golden Era Trump speaks about is turning into The Scrap Metal Era for the average American. 

[OlDawg]

42 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm not giving up that this will work to America's benefit.  While Trump is the spokesman and final decision maker, there are lots of military planners making the calls. 

Given enough time, the blockade of Iranian ports will work to starve the country economically. But, China will find a way to resupply their military via Pakistan, and other ground or air routes. The U.S. either can't--or won't--block that access. Trump is actually tying the hands of our military, and has from the beginning when he stipulated no ground troops.

I'm aware--more than most on this site--of what our military can do when allowed to do it's job without restraints.

What benefit are you seeking? If your answer is "No nukes", how will you assure that given the regime's history, and no ground troops? Did you really believe this would end positively without regime change?

As long as people of similar ideology are in power in Iran, you're just spitting in the wind, and making our servicemen and women fight with one hand tied behind their back because of political concerns.

Personal opinion: The ceasefire was--and is--a mistake.

[DCT]

20 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm not giving up that this will work to America's benefit.  While Trump is the spokesman and final decision maker, there are lots of military planners making the calls. 

Why are they putting in their resignation?

[DCT]

20 hours ago, Porter said:

Hope it works because The Golden Era Trump speaks about is turning into The Scrap Metal Era for the average American. 

This^^^^^

[OlDawg]

Pentagon infighting led to Navy Secretary dismissal. The Pentagon is very political, and all of the Secretaries are political appointees. They're basically budget managers. Not planners, or anything dealing with actual military actions.

[OlDawg]

If the naval blockade of Iran continues, and no end is finalized in the current conflict in short order, familiarize yourself with Khunjerab Pass. This crossing is part of the Silk Road Initiative, and is less than 1000 miles from China to Iran if passing through Pakistan. Would Pakistan allow China to resupply Iran you may ask?

Simple answer: Yes. Although, they would deny it publicly.

Iran, Pakistan, and China have an alliance, and both Iran and Pakistan are heavily reliant on Chinese support. Pakistan and Iran aren't allies. But, they're also not enemies. They--historically--have backed each other up in regional conflicts against others.

This ceasefire is not helpful in the long term. China will do all they can to not allow their Iranian oil spigot to be turned off. They receive 95% of their oil from Iran, and will do what's necessary for them to maintain leverage with the Iranian regime. Weaponry and technology can be easily transported via this route, and the U.S. would have few to no options to stop it.

It would be China's version of the U.S. supporting Ukraine.