Pooter

“Iran can’t have a nuke.” My issue with this stance is that it’s nothing more than a tagline. It’s not a plan, it’s an item on a wishlist. If the totally clear and not changing goal from the beginning has always been to deny Iran a nuke now and forever.. I have a few questions. First, since I guess we already established diplomacy isn’t going to work.. JCPOA sucked, was going to expire, Iran just does what they want anyway.. and since the regime always will try for a nuke and will try to reconstitute the nuke capacity they do have.. HOW do we prevent them from getting a nuke? From where I sit it would take two things: Send in a massive ground force for weeks to excavate and take the nuke material they do have Full, actual regime change or dismantlement. Not a fake regime change like the one we’re claiming we did where all the relatives and buddies of the dead guys take over and just keep doing the same thing. The next obvious question is: do we have the capability to do that? Probably yes but at a huge cost and we’d need to commit far more to the war than what is currently, including deploying a large portion of the army. The next obvious question is: do we have the political will to do it? Which I think the answer is indubitably: no. My last question is if this was always the clear goal, why wasn’t the operation pitched to the American people that way originally? Why did we go through the midnight hammer “totally obliterated” charade knowing full well bulldozers exist and reconstitution efforts would start immediately? Why was epic fury pitched as an absolutely no boots on the ground op when we knew full well eventually we’d need to go in and take the “dust?” Why is Hegseth claiming “our military objectives are complete” when the main thing this war is apparently about is still unfinished? Why are we now on the doorstep of a boots on the ground regime change war despite every neocon in existence calling skeptics “panakins” and assuring us for the last year that it wouldn’t happen? Like I warned months or maybe even a year ago in this very thread: escalations happen insidiously. No one sets out to have a years long boots on the ground regime change boondoggle and it isn’t always readily apparent when you’re walking down the path toward being in one. But here we are with no end in sight, making grand claims about what we can and cannot allow a very well armed country of 90 million people to do. If you guys think I’m missing a door #3 option I’d love to hear it.

Because allowing the enemy access open source BDA gives them more information about what capabilities we now lack or what could still be brought to bear against them

With Iran and terrorism in general I always find it’s a chicken/egg scenario of circular logic. -Why do the they hate us? -Because of our bases and meddling in the region -Why do we have bases and meddle in the region? -Because there’s people there who hate us This is part of the reason I reject the good vs bad over-simplification. There are countries and groups in that region that have very legitimate and understandable beef with us and Israel. Not saying I like them or want them to win but if I put myself in their shoes I’d probably feel the same way they do. If they “hated us for our freedom” and secular liberal western values, like the tired old saying goes, they’d be attacking Denmark and Sweden just as much as they try to attack us. But they don’t do that, because Denmark and Sweden aren’t the world empire constantly dicking around in their back yard. My ultimate motivation is what’s good for the United States and our people which is why I’m fundamentally against most of these offensive war-of-choice interventions. When we go into the Middle East without a coherent plan, without goals aligned with our allies, without international support, and without an exit strategy we end up harming ourselves more than helping ourselves. We make more enemies than we kill, we create more new problems than we solve, and we harden populations and cultures against us for the long run. And this is all before even accounting for the loss of our own service members, civilian death tolls, and the monetary cost measured in trillions across the various decades terror wars. The only way any of this ever gets any support from the public is by invoking some grand existential threat.. “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Well that’s cool, because they weren’t making one and not too long ago when real adults were doing the diplomacy we actually had an agreement with nuke enrichment limits that Iran was adhering to. That’s what ‘good guys’ do: intelligently apply leverage from previous sanctions to get the deal you want without firing a shot.

Sorry I’m referring to the nuclear proliferation treaty. Not a treaty between us and Iran per se, just something both of us have signed onto. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-non-proliferation-nuclear-weapons It outlines limits and international goals to limit nuke proliferation, but also the rights of nations regarding their civilian programs. When the JCPOA was in effect my understanding is that it was kind of a stricter layer on top of the NPT in exchange for sanctions relief, but as soon as it was tossed out, the NPT became the prevailing law again.

I know sourced arguments are a rarity and have very limited effect around here, but here goes nothing. It is a fact that they were in compliance for the duration of and slightly after Trump tore up the deal. https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-confirms-irans-compliance-jcpoa Here’s a report from our own congress on the JCPOA: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40094#_Toc205812494 “Until July 2019, all official reports and statements from the United Nations, European Union, the IAEA, and the non-U.S. participating governments indicated that Iran had fulfilled its JCPOA and related Resolution 2231 requirements.” And another one CIPAssessing The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran Dea...The JCPOA must be properly understood as working before we can attempt to understand why the Trump administration left the deal.“The record shows that Iran complied with the terms of the JCPOA.”

Disagree. The treaty we signed says they have a right to produce their own. Us offering to sell it to them cheap is still a form of leverage we hold where it could be cut off at any moment. It is completely understandable a country wouldn’t agree to that. Except they have agreed to compromises before. Like the one we had and then tore up. Or the negotiations we were in with them right before we used those negotiations as a cover for a surprise attack (twice) Maybe my writing wasn’t clear, I didn’t think you were. That’s a standard I believe should be a thing. On the debate about Israeli nukes and good guys vs. bad guys we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think it’s naive to view ourselves as the perennial good guys. WRT Iran we’ve even tampered with their government in the past motivated mainly to stop nationalization of oil. We’ve armed, then betrayed, then armed again opposing nations and militant groups all over the Middle East to *theoretically* advance our interests for decades, all with virtually zero regard for moral or even strategic consistency. I’m not even impugning intentions.. mostly it’s the results I have an issue with. We start things because we think we can pull it off and then when it inevitably blows up in our face, we go “whoops, that sucks” and GTFO

Well under the JCPOA we had a regular inspection regimen, Iranian enrichment limited to ~3%, and up until Trump tossed it in 2018, the IAEA said Iran was operating within the bounds of the agreement. Part of my frustration with this war (and broader Iran strategy in general) is we keep blowing up the status quo, getting into a much worse situation, and then going “gee it sure would be nice to get back to the status quo we just had.” But the whole reason I brought up the civilian program in Iran is because Israel says it’s a no go for them. This is a big problem for two reasons. 1) it’s pretty unsat that Israel has secret nukes, didn’t sign the NPT, and now is trying to dictate the terms of another country’s nuclear program. We wouldn’t tolerate that behavior from literally anyone else. 2) the bigger problem is the “no enrichment” Israel wants so badly is a total poison pill for Iran as far as making a deal. So yet again, we have our intransigent welfare baby country dictating the terms of the war we’re fighting on their behalf. Not great. And It’s becoming increasingly evident Trump (to his credit) wants to find a way out of this thing while Israel seems to want anything but. Bibi knows he absolutely has the ability to stir the pot whenever he wants to bait an Iranian response, and then by default we’re dragged back into hostilities. No one said they’re deserving of nukes. I just don’t think Israel has the right to lecture anyone about nukes, and by extension we don’t either because we’re BFFs with a state that has them in secret and won’t sign the non-proliferation treaty. That’s not a tortured view of morality. That’s an objective standard. The standard is: nuclear proliferation is bad no matter if it’s Israel or Iran who does it. Maybe it’s naive of me but I try to look for objective standards like this to define my political stances. Sometimes it requires zooming out and looking at our actions from an international frame of reference. And yes, sometimes that does lead to some pretty uncomfy conclusions. Like: not every conflict is as simple as good vs evil, and sometimes we might not even be the good guys. And none of that is to say I hate my country or I’m rooting for failure or I think we’re always in the wrong. I just want us to do things that aren’t insanely dumb, and if we can sometimes throw in the added benefit of it not being morally backwards or hypocritical, that would be cool too.

Just to reattack on this, yes we all agree Iran having a nuke is a thing we don’t want. Is it something I’m willing to go to WW3 over? No, not particularly. North Korea got a nuke and the world kept turning. Pakistan and India have nukes pointed at each other as next door neighbors. Russia, and China have nukes. The world kept spinning. Iran is a pariah yes but their regime is also interested in self preservation, so I don’t think they just magically go suicidal the second they get a nuke. They want it as a deterrent just like everyone else. The other interesting question is whether people think Iran has a right to a civilian nuclear program. I think yes mainly because the NPT we are signatories on grants that right to all countries. Civilian development is bounded by IAEA limits which Iran has violated before, so their hands aren’t clean here either. You don’t build facilities under a mountain to make medical isotopes. Or maybe you do if you think some assholes are gonna keep trying to bomb you. Regardless, they’ve broken the rules and the one serious effort to rein them in (the JCPOA) which was working by the way.. is now in the shredder. But most interestingly, civilian development in Iran is a bright red line for Israel. This is particularly rich because Israel aren’t signatories on the NPT and are well known to have unacknowledged nuclear weapons.

Call me crazy but idk what domestic gun rights of US citizens has to do with military development going on in a country on the other side of the world. (Also for the umpteenth time, our intel community assessed they weren’t making a nuke) A better quote of the day might be: Imagine being the only country who has ever used nukes, allied with a country who has secret nukes, and thinking you’re in a position to lecture anyone else about nukes

This seems very very pedantic but sure I’ll use your terms in the spirit of friendly debate. I have googled it and traffic through the strait has been reduced by 95% plus. In any other context a 95% degradation of something would be considered kaput. Your car’s gas tank is 95% empty.. that’s empty. Your home air conditioning is pumping out 5% of the cold air it normally does.. your AC is broke. Your son only mows 5% of the yard.. hey buddy you didn’t mow the yard like I told you to. To the rest of your comment I noticed you used the word “nebulous” a lot. And I actually think it’s a perfect description of what’s going on. Maybe the reason we can’t agree on basic facts isn’t a problem of either of us but it’s because the war goals have been so nebulous no one is even sure what the desired end state is supposed to be. We have Trump proclaiming the war is over a few days back and then Bibi goes on the news and says the work isn’t done and we still have to get the nuclear material, more missile sites etc… And since our support for Israel is clearly limitless I’ll defer to the guy who I think is actually calling the shots (Bibi) and will assume this thing is far from over

Fair enough. Would also like to respectfully request that goes in both directions and when people who disagree with this war post things they don’t get called TDS deranged libtards without people addressing any of the points. I know I get heated sometimes but it’s genuinely hard to have a serious conversation when we’re quibbling about whether the strait is open or not

Hey google how many ships are stranded in the strait right now? “As of May 10th 2026, an estimated 1,600 to 2,000 ships are trapped or stranded in the Persian Gulf and around the Strait of Hormuz” … the IRGC and the previous ayatollahs son are in charge. And they have all the exact same goals. Are you seriously saying that since we killed some dudes we can check this one off the list despite their replacements pursuing the exact same things? Trump said at the beginning of the war:“U.S. would destroy Iran’s missiles and raze the country’s missile infrastructure “to the ground.” I’ll cut you some slack on this because the admin themselves have shifted the goalposts on this one changing from words like “obliterate” and “totally destroy” at the beginning of the conflict, to “degrade” more recently. Regardless, initial goal not met. Iran still holds our assets and allies in the region at risk with significant missile stockpiles Yes it was. The protest crackdowns were a primary justification, the president tweeted that the people should rise up, and it went hand in hand with the goal of achieving a regime change. None of which happened. .. our own government is saying the nuke material is still at large In summary, that was a pretty wild public display of mental gymnastics and cope. I really hope this isn’t how you grade mission objectives in your debriefs.. explaining everything away with semantics or BS technicalities while none of the intent is actually met.

We know we've struck a lot more (13,000+) targets in Iran from SECDEF press conferences, but is admitting we've had things hit too somehow propaganda? What exactly is your definition of propaganda. As a taxpayer I feel knowing the full extent of damage (within the limits of opsec) taken by our side is absolutely not propaganda.. If anything, lying about the war and saying it's going better than it is, is propaganda. And which part of the list is inaccurate

Probably.. but also other than bickering about partisanship why does it matter? Facts are facts. Those assets were struck by Iran and now we don't have them anymore. Trying to tease out the argument here.. is it: "wapo was soft on hillary/benghazi/biden, therefore current factual reporting is invalid?" Or is it: "other things were clown shows too so that makes this one fine?" Anyways.. just doing my occasional check in to see how our victory lap is going strait: still closed regime: still in power iranian people: still oppressed tbm capability: still intact nuclear material: still at large deal with iran: still nonexistent despite claims they're desperate for one ceasefire: continual rolex on the deadline, also not even really a ceasefire gas prices: worse than last time I was here Just so tired of all the winning guys, but please by all means tell me how my TDS invalidates all these basic facts

Fort Collins does have good breweries, I’ll go with ya And if you’re wondering the CGOC is exactly as lame today as it appears it was 20 years ago

Well most admins don’t just randomly fire the CJCS because he’s black as part of some stupid anti-DEI right wing virtue signaling exercise. Especially when Trump nominated the guy to be CSAF in the first place. But broader than that I think this admin just fires generals that tell uncomfortable truths until they can find yes men who tell them what they want to hear. Maybe to you that’s “alignment.” I see it as delusion mixed with some seriously thick knee pads

Ok now play the montage of all the times Trump said the dems were so stupid and bad at negotiating the they’d start a war with Iran Oh wait I forgot quote montages are only interesting when it’s cornering randos on the street not POTUS shamelessly contradicting himself

I actually kinda hate the TACO line of criticism against Trump. Yeah he backed off his red lines and stupid ultimatums, but he did so in the direction of de-escalation. If you don’t like this war, this news was objectively a good thing. It’s like making fun of your friend for “chickening out” of robbing a bank. No, just be happy your friend isn’t doing something stupid. Now granted, we never needed to be in this situation or issue stupid threats and ultimatums in the first place. But I will give credit where it is due and in an absolutely wacky turn of events I’m now in here saying good job to Trump for being the only person involved in this thing who seems even slightly interested in deescalation. We’ll see how long this ends up lasting.. for all I know our foreign policy messaging could have done a 180 just in the time it took me to type this comment. I hope Trump can withstand the external pressure because you can bet Netanyahu and the Mark Levins and Ben Shapiros and Adelsons of the world are working overtime right now to get the war turned back on. Just one more month of bombing guys that’ll get rid of the IRGC 👌👌

Uhh.. I do. I’m no fan of this admin or this war but this isn’t black ops in places we aren’t supposed to be, this is a named operation and lying about casualties in public military ops is not a bridge that we’ve crossed as far as I’m aware. Our military social media ecosystem is also so interconnected it would be pretty tough to keep that stuff secret in this conflict. Dudes are snap chatting their aircraft carrier chow hall dinner rations and filming FPV video of TBMs hitting nearby.. pretty sure if the government was keeping large numbers of casualties secret that would stay secret for a grand total of 5 minutes. There are enough valid reasons this war is dumb let’s not get into actual nonsense conspiracy land

And the people are only half the problem. Even if we had all the guard folks in the world we don’t have the jets for them to fly. Just using open source numbers we went from 4,000+ fighters in 1990 to 1,500-2000 today. Bombers down from 300-400 to just barely over 100. Obviously systems are more capable and precise now but that doesn’t make up for sheer volume if you’re talking about force cuts of 60-75%. A lot of people don’t realize how deep these cuts have been and still think we can throw desert storm 1 volume at problems and absolutely steamroll adversaries. The reality is we can’t come close to that anymore and I think it has created some unrealistic expectations in this conflict

Maybe it’s all a big ploy to win a bunch of money on polymarket and pay down the national debt. Might be the only strategy that makes any of this make any sense

Sorry but I’m not going to re-litigate every foreign policy intervention in modern history in your requested format.. I doubt anyone here wants that anyway. But in general I think just wars are defensive ones. Politicians know this is how most people feel which is probably why every nonsense offensive intervention is sold to the public by invoking “WMDs” or “preventing the spread of communism” or some other “Imminent threat.” Also it’s funny you say I’d make a better politician than soldier because I’m generally anti-war. AFAIK it was our military senior leaders advising Trump against moves on Kharg island while Lindsey Graham was pleasuring himself to the thought of another Iwo Jima. If you think our politicians are against wars, I genuinely don’t know who you’re talking about. But this is the Iran thread and I’m talking about this war, the lies that got us into it, and the chaotic mess our president continues to exacerbate with his nonsense statements and nonexistent strategy. I noticed the strait is closed again.. so when oil spikes and the Dow takes a dump tomorrow will we be admitting the victory declaration was slightly premature? I wonder how many more strait of Hormuz Open-Closed-Open-Closed cycles will need to happen before we realize that Iran isn’t quite as decimated as we’d like to believe and the president is just wishcasting foreign policy by tweet

Your comment actually does bring up an interesting point even despite your framing of internal government fracturing in Iran as an unmitigated win. Who is in charge in Iran right now? Are we even negotiating with the right people? If we agree to something will it be followed? Some of us kooks against more middle eastern regime change boondoggles actually warned about this.. when you create a power vacuum, often the most radical elements fill the void. Gee where have I heard this story before

Mm yes using one pointless boondoggle to justify another. Here’s a prediction: as long as we have troops in the Middle East, they’ll always be targeted periodically and we will inevitably incur casualties. So we’ll never run out of dumb justifications for new interventions