America already tried to do it in Iraq and Yemen with pretty insignificant effect. What makes you think, that this time you'll be successful and, what is more important, Iranians will fall in love with you and sign a peace treaty?
How’d that work out in Afghanistan? Its the Same playbook you want to use in Iran....
Nuclear war is not like chess.
Wrong.
Then they are responsible for what happens to them. Nuclear war is not worth the risk.
Trump will be in office until January 2029. No election will change that. Democrats can piss and moan all they want.
True. Trump started the war to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran is nothing like AFG, except that the Taliban and crazy mullahs in Iran are both vicious thugs.
Bombs.
We did not attack the water facilities in Iraq or Yemen.
It mostly depends on who you are. If you are an ordinary hungry civilian, hiding and scavenging in radioactive ruins of, say, Chicago, or an ordinary Militiamen, hunting marauders in those ruins, it's could be a roulette.
Very well, Kyzr, you are making some progress. From 1% of population you came up to 20% of population. But twenty percent is also wrong number. And, of course, you must understand the difference between being in opposition (as far of I understand you was in opposition to the acting POTUS roughly half or time) and being a traitor or even a mutineer. Would you betray the USA just to get rid of Biden and/or Obama?
If it's not worth the risk - you should alleviate.
Kicking Americans from Middle East would give a lot of opportunities. And giving Iran to America might create vital threats to both Russia and China.
Even if he is dead? Are you going to keep his mummy there?
Democrats, RINOs and those MAGA's who are not in the cult, can remove him by another way.
Not necessarily.
It was just a formal excuse (and even as this it was both arrogant and illegal) and we both know, that any country has right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, and there was no a sign of Iranian nuclear weapon program.
Iranian air defenses are useless against F-35's and the US has hundreds of thousands of JDAMS available, so there is no target above ground in Iran that the US and Israel can't quickly demolish any target in Iran with minimal risk to the planes or crews.
Bombs usually have to be delivered by bombers. And bombers are vulnerable to air defences and fighters.
Of course you did.
You can try to create them some problems in some places. But Iran is mostly mountains, not a flat desert, so don't expect a lot of practical results from this potential act.
If it were useless, the USA wouldn't end this operation, begging for negotiations.
Israel has no bombers yet delivers many bombs. Missiles may be vulnerable to air defenses but not bombs.
Fighter-bombers, are quite poor both in fighting for air superiority and in bombing. And they are still vulnerable both to air defences and fighters. I mean Tom Cruise was great in "Top Gun: Maverick", but even in the movie it took a lot of cruise missiles and figher-bombers to destroy one important underground target. In the real life it will be much more difficult, especially fighting against real Su-57s.
Not now. They have been suppressed. These are large facilities vulnerable to stealth bomber attacks in high threat environments, much less low threat environments wherein we have Gen 5 fighters.
Please cite proof of your statement. If we destroyed the water supplies of Yemen or Iraq millions would have died in two weeks.
If we shut off the water, millions are now displaced. Tehran was almost their last year due to drought.
So the F-35 has shown itself to be safe from Iran's air defenses and has not been shown to be vulnerable to any other plane. While you may ponder why Cruise didn't call in the B2 stealthy bombers to attack underground targets, the F-35's are more than adequate to take out Iran's electricity and fuel supply and many more.
Who??? That is a movie! You know. Fiction?
Yeah that's hard to argue with. Maybe the strategy was we needed tangible results with Epic Fury and then focus intelligence on current IRGC targets. I have to think that's what the "delays" are about.
It's not true. At least one F-35A was damaged by Iranian air defence. And it was during carefully planned operation, avoiding possible losses. If you want to attack heavily defended targets (especially now, when Iran is better prepared) be ready to lost much more planes without achieving any meaningful result.
They have been not. That's the main reason why Trump ended one operation and started another, begging Iranians for negotiations. Some people believe that now Iranian air defence is better than before the war.
You are not the only onw who have Gen 5 fighters. What is even more important, it's unlikely that you will use F-22 for this operation, which can more or less became a problem for Su-57. And F-35s are just soft meat for them.
It's common knowledge. You can start with any google search.
www.globalresearch.ca
It's technically difficult, I'd even say impossible, to destroy water supply in a country that big and with that many mountains. They can evacuate Tehran, if necessary, and build a new capital. Why not?
Ao, you prefer losing money first of all, on direct disruption of trade lanes, second - on military and security expences, third - on paying and supplying some ineffective degenarates, and fourth - even if they win, they say f#ck you, and became your enemies. And all this instead of respecting international law and Russian sphere of influence and making mutually profitable business? Are you sure you are a true MAGA?
We won't launch first, but if we are hit with a nuke we launch. All it takes is the president and the "nuclear football".
Only 125,000 have guns, that's the number of IRGC still standing. The 20% of the population that supports the mullahs will get theirs after the new regime gets in.
Giving nukes to Iran is not worth the risk to Russia or China.
Trump will be in office until January 2029, he isn't going to die. Even if he does, JD Vance would continue Trump's policies.
OK, you're rooting for Iran, I'm rooting for the USA, we'll see who comes thru the war in better condition.
Was the JCPOA just a formal excuse?
