The next offensive must focus on decimating the IRGC.

[Man With A Plan]

Is the Strait open as it was on February 28th? Yes or no.

I'll be curious to see what your response is going to be when Trump drops the hammer on Iran. He's been nice so far. That ends soon. I hope you enjoy the ride!

 

[kyzr]

If you don't want WW3 - alleviate now. And if you are not ready to sacrifice even one million of American soldiers in the ground invasion, you are definitely not ready to sacrifice at least (in the most optimistic for you scenario) forty millions of civilians in the nuclear exchange with Russia and China. It means, you are bluffing, and Russia is pretty safe to sell nukes to Iran (if Iran wants it and ready to pay).

Your logic is flawed. We don't need a ground invasion, we have a blockade that is working just fine.
If we invaded, we'd bring the Kurds, and the Gulf states. We'd also get the 570,000 man Artesh.
All against the 125,000 IRGC. Not "sacrificing" many at all. In Iraq we lost about 4,000 no where near a million.
We'd do even better in Iran.

Freedom is worth. "Give me freedom or give me death". And if you are going to take their freedom they might be ready to, at least, take few millions of Americans with them and you have only yourself to blame.

Extermination is not worth the risk.
You aren't free if you are dead. Playing with nuclear weapons only gets them exterminated.
We are going to give them freedom from the vicious ayatollahs and the IRGC.

Iranians chant and dance in the streets after US, Israeli air strikes: ‘I love Trump!’

Celebrations have erupted across Iran as citizens cheer on the US and Israeli missile strikes that targeted the regime, according to Middle Eastern outlets.

nypost.com

 

[multivita-man]

I'll be curious to see what your response is going to be when Trump drops the hammer on Iran. He's been nice so far. That ends soon. I hope you enjoy the ride!

What do you think he's going to do that he hasn't done so far? I suppose nukes are an option, but that would be a serious war crime - I can't imagine a general signing off on that order. Moreover, that brings us to the doorstep of an all-out nuclear exchange involving the US, Russia, China, and North Korea, all of whom regard Iran is a crucial strategic partner (I won't call them an ally, but they don't have to be).

Israel, OTOH, could use nukes, but if they do, they'd better hope they finish Iran off because Iran would finish off Israel. They don't even need nukes to do it.

 

[Man With A Plan]

What do you think he's going to do that he hasn't done so far? I suppose nukes are an option, but that would be a serious war crime - I can't imagine a general signing off on that order. Moreover, that brings us to the doorstep of an all-out nuclear exchange involving the US, Russia, China, and North Korea, all of whom regard Iran is a crucial strategic partner (I won't call them an ally, but they don't have to be).

Israel, OTOH, could use nukes, but if they do, they'd better hope they finish Iran off because Iran would finish off Israel. They don't even need nukes to do it.

He's going to take out transportation infrastructure. Bridges and roads. He's going to continue to target IRGC leadership. He has no need to use nukes nor would he. He wants to do as little damage to Iran as possible so when the Iranian people finally DO overturn this regime they still have a country left!

 

[multivita-man]

He's going to take out transportation infrastructure. Bridges and roads. He's going to continue to target IRGC leadership. He has no need to use nukes nor would he.

He's already taken out bridges - and IRGC leadership. IRGC has a mosaic operation system. It's decentralized. You can't take out IRGC by taking out their central command.

He wants to do as little damage to Iran as possible so when the Iranian people finally DO overturn this regime they still have a country left!

Iranian people support Iran's leadership, not Trump or Bibi.

Cope.

 

[Man With A Plan]

He's already taken out bridges - and IRGC leadership. IRGC has a mosaic operation system. It's decentralized. You can't take out IRGC by taking out their central command.



Iranian people support Iran's leadership, not Trump or Bibi.

Cope.

I'm curious...why do you want the Iranian regime to survive? You do realize they just murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens simply for unarmed protest in the street? That they've been the number one sponsor of international terror for the last four decades? Why would you want THOSE guys to win...which you obviously do?

 

[Man With A Plan]

He's already taken out bridges - and IRGC leadership. IRGC has a mosaic operation system. It's decentralized. You can't take out IRGC by taking out their central command.



Iranian people support Iran's leadership, not Trump or Bibi.

Cope.

The present IRGC leadership can be taken out just like the prior leadership was taken out. Too many of the Iranian people want to see the IRGC removed from power. They'll be giving away the locations of those new leaders. The Mossad obviously has an extensive intelligence network in place in Iran. You can expect precision strikes coming from Israel. At some point NOBODY will want to be in charge of the IRGC! They'll tuck tail and run. It's what happens to all regimes that rule by brutal crack downs.

 

[MarathonMike]

IRGC has a mosaic operation system. It's decentralized. You can't take out IRGC by taking out their central command.

Yes they are de-centralized but their movements have been tracked ever since we gained control of their airspace. I don't have a crystal ball, but I started this thread based on what logically must happen to get the surviving Regime leaders and Mullahs to flee to their condos in Moscow.

 

[Kruska]

Yes they are de-centralized but their movements have been tracked ever since we gained control of their airspace. I don't have a crystal ball, but I started this thread based on what logically must happen to get the surviving Regime leaders and Mullahs to flee to their condos in Moscow.

Neither Israel nor the US controls Iranian airspace - there is no such thing as no-fight zone established, and Iran has so far only engaged in passive radar tracking. Guess why? The majority of (bombs) actually missiles dropped onto Iran have been distance weapons from aircraft outside of Iranian airspace, US ground and ship based missiles and e.g. Tomahawks.

It was only in the first days when US e.g. B2's and Israeli/US F-35's entered Iranian airspace. and that's were they took careful notice of Iran only using passive radar.

And those Mullahs and IRGC tops - don't have their luxury homes in Moscow - but in Europe and foremost in the USA. Ever wonder why your $$TACO never called in ICE?? or the IRS?? except for one single prominent case and a handful of others

Experts estimate that between 4,000 and 5,000 relatives of Iranian regime leaders and bureaucrats live in the United States. While the exact number of individuals directly involved in government leadership is not publicly specified, it has been widely reported that the children, spouses, and extended families of many of Iran’s most outspoken anti-Western leaders reside on US soil.

 

[Zavulon]

Your logic is flawed. We don't need a ground invasion, we have a blockade that is working just fine.
If we invaded, we'd bring the Kurds, and the Gulf states. We'd also get the 570,000 man Artesh.
All against the 125,000 IRGC. Not "sacrificing" many at all. In Iraq we lost about 4,000 no where near a million.
We'd do even better in Iran.

It's not about how good, or how bad is your blockade. It's about your readiness and preparedness to absorb damage and suffer casualties. What if (not that big "if") your blockade doesn't work and the Kurds are decide to fight against you, and Gulf states (including Israel) refused to die for your ambitions, what if Iran find a countermeasures against your blockade both economically (other trade lanes) and military - like unmanned little silent submarines with AI to find US ships in the certain region? What if you face the choice - 1) alleviate; 2) start a ground invasion with possible further nuclear escalation; 3) to use tactical nukes (with the risk of escalation and total devastation of the region, with its fragile infrastructure).

If your nukes are off the table, then Russian and Chinese nukes (at least tactical) are definitely on the table.

Extermination is not worth the risk.
You aren't free if you are dead. Playing with nuclear weapons only gets them exterminated.
We are going to give them freedom from the vicious ayatollahs and the IRGC.

Iranians chant and dance in the streets after US, Israeli air strikes: ‘I love Trump!’

Celebrations have erupted across Iran as citizens cheer on the US and Israeli missile strikes that targeted the regime, according to Middle Eastern outlets.

nypost.com

Aren't you an American? Aren't you ready to die for your freedom? Aren't they fanatics who do want to die for what they believe is their religious duty? C'mon, perception of Iranians (and other nations) as genetic slaves and subhumans is not only racist, it's simply wrong and misleading.
So, let's assume that they are ready to die for their freedom, and as they wish, Russia and China are ready to help them either to keep Americans away (if America f#ck off after Iran acquire nukes), either die with honour and take as many Americans with them as it will be possible (but no more than 30% of total US population), if they don't.

In this situation the USA will face simple choice:
1) F#ck off and don't fight Iran;
2) Fight Iran and have Middle East destroyed and some American cities with it (suffering terrible, but survivable losses);
3) Fight Russia and China simultaneously and suffer virtual annihilation.

If you don't choose 2, it definitely means that you won't choose 3, too.

 

[kyzr]

It's not about how good, or how bad is your blockade. It's about your readiness and preparedness to absorb damage and suffer casualties. What if (not that big "if") your blockade doesn't work and the Kurds are decide to fight against you, and Gulf states (including Israel) refused to die for your ambitions, what if Iran find a countermeasures against your blockade both economically (other trade lanes) and military - like unmanned little silent submarines with AI to find US ships in the certain region? What if you face the choice - 1) alleviate; 2) start a ground invasion with possible further nuclear escalation; 3) to use tactical nukes (with the risk of escalation and total devastation of the region, with its fragile infrastructure). If your nukes are off the table, then Russian and Chinese nukes (at least tactical) are definitely on the table.

Your "what ifs" are very low probability, especially about Russian and Chinese nukes.

Aren't you an American? Aren't you ready to die for your freedom? Aren't they fanatics who do want to die for what they believe is their religious duty? C'mon, perception of Iranians (and other nations) as genetic slaves and subhumans is not only racist, it's simply wrong and misleading.

Don't conflate the 125,000 IRGC and the crazy mullahs with the 93,000,000 Iranians who want freedom from them, even to the point of dying while protesting. Then seeing public hangings. The right side in this conflict is getting rid of that vicious regime.

So, let's assume that they are ready to die for their freedom, and as they wish, Russia and China are ready to help them either to keep Americans away (if America f#ck off after Iran acquire nukes), either die with honour and take as many Americans with them as it will be possible (but no more than 30% of total US population), if they don't.

Russia and China are not ready to help Iran.
Russia is busy in Ukraine and China's only focus is Taiwan, neither is stupid enough to give Iran nukes.

In this situation the USA will face simple choice:
1) F#ck off and don't fight Iran;
2) Fight Iran and have Middle East destroyed and some American cities with it (suffering terrible, but survivable losses);
3) Fight Russia and China simultaneously and suffer virtual annihilation.
If you don't choose 2, it definitely means that you won't choose 3, too.

The only choice is the course we are on. Maintain the blockade, keep bombing Iran until they surrender, as long as it takes.
Russia and China get back to normal when Hormuz is opened, China gets more oil, Russia gets slaughtered in Ukraine.

 

[multivita-man]

Yes they are de-centralized but their movements have been tracked ever since we gained control of their airspace. I don't have a crystal ball, but I started this thread based on what logically must happen to get the surviving Regime leaders and Mullahs to flee to their condos in Moscow.

The IRGC leadership is made up mostly of Iran-Iraq war veterans who have come up through the ranks and know their craft. They've been preparing for this war for decades. They've got a organizational structure that has layers of redundancy and reliability built into it, and they had nearly a million foot soldiers at the start of the war - probably more than that now. A ground invasion would be a bloody disaster and a naval push on Hormuz would be similarly disastrous.

The odds of us reversing the advantage are extremely low. We'd basically have to suffer a global depression and risk having our navy and global combat readiness destroyed to achieve that outcome. At some point, the smart move is to admit that we weren't prepared and move on.

 

[multivita-man]

The present IRGC leadership can be taken out just like the prior leadership was taken out.

And the IRGC can start firing away at more and more targets across the Gulf.

Too many of the Iranian people want to see the IRGC removed from power. They'll be giving away the locations of those new leaders. The Mossad obviously has an extensive intelligence network in place in Iran. You can expect precision strikes coming from Israel. At some point NOBODY will want to be in charge of the IRGC! They'll tuck tail and run. It's what happens to all regimes that rule by brutal crack downs.

Nah, most Iranians do not want a broken state, which is the only thing we're offering them.

 

[shockedcanadian]

They are obfuscating in regards to a deal. Why else would they send something unrelated to the issues at hand? They do not want a deal it seems.

 

[Man With A Plan]

And the IRGC can start firing away at more and more targets across the Gulf.



Nah, most Iranians do not want a broken state, which is the only thing we're offering them.

We're offering them freedom from an oppressive regime for the first time in 40 years...something that hasn't been possible before.

My question for you is a simple one. Why would you want to see this regime remain in place? The Iranian people deserve better.

 

[Man With A Plan]

They are obfuscating in regards to a deal. Why else would they send something unrelated to the issues at hand? They do not want a deal it seems.

They're stalling. It's time to shut them down.

 

[shockedcanadian]

They're stalling. It's time to shut them down.

I agree that regime change would be the best outcome. I have said for some time that this is an issue for the CIA.

The Bay of Pigs attack failed not because they had armed Cuban opposition, as they did, but because they failed to attack with air support.

In this attack against the Iranian regime it was exactly the opposite. Why would they neutralize the former leader without a strong armed opposition prepared to replace them?

It is confusing to me. They essentially made a similar mistake JFK made in Cuba but with the opposite issue, strong air support and intelligence but not enough support on the ground for the replacement.

 

[Deadstick]

It's not about how good, or how bad is your blockade. It's about your readiness and preparedness to absorb damage and suffer casualties. What if (not that big "if") your blockade doesn't work and the Kurds are decide to fight against you, and Gulf states (including Israel) refused to die for your ambitions, what if Iran find a countermeasures against your blockade both economically (other trade lanes) and military - like unmanned little silent submarines with AI to find US ships in the certain region? What if you face the choice - 1) alleviate; 2) start a ground invasion with possible further nuclear escalation; 3) to use tactical nukes (with the risk of escalation and total devastation of the region, with its fragile infrastructure).

If your nukes are off the table, then Russian and Chinese nukes (at least tactical) are definitely on the table.



Aren't you an American? Aren't you ready to die for your freedom? Aren't they fanatics who do want to die for what they believe is their religious duty? C'mon, perception of Iranians (and other nations) as genetic slaves and subhumans is not only racist, it's simply wrong and misleading.
So, let's assume that they are ready to die for their freedom, and as they wish, Russia and China are ready to help them either to keep Americans away (if America f#ck off after Iran acquire nukes), either die with honour and take as many Americans with them as it will be possible (but no more than 30% of total US population), if they don't.

In this situation the USA will face simple choice:
1) F#ck off and don't fight Iran;
2) Fight Iran and have Middle East destroyed and some American cities with it (suffering terrible, but survivable losses);
3) Fight Russia and China simultaneously and suffer virtual annihilation.

If you don't choose 2, it definitely means that you won't choose 3, too.

Some of those Gulf states like the UAE will become empty deserts and the people will flee, because their desalination plants will be destroyed, the only thing left to drink will be their own piss.

 

[gipper]

I agree that regime change would be the best outcome. I have said for some time that this is an issue for the CIA.

The Bay of Pigs attack failed not because they had armed Cuban opposition, as they did, but because they failed to attack with air support.

In this attack against the Iranian regime it was exactly the opposite. Why would they neutralize the former leader without a strong armed opposition prepared to replace them?

It is confusing to me. They essentially made a similar mistake JFK made in Cuba but with the opposite issue, strong air support and intelligence but not enough support on the ground for the replacement.

There is that ugly western imperialist again, rising his ugly head.

 

[shockedcanadian]

There is that ugly western imperialist again, rising his ugly head.

I choose America to be the sole super power rather than China.

If you have an issue with that comrade, I am a reasonable and open minded man so I ask you to make your case for such an outcome and I will at least entertain this.

Until then, yes, I choose America over China.