Iran

[EasternVol]

So Iran descends into anarchy and then we sit back and hope that whatever emerges from the chaos is better?

That's the plan?

Looking at Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and what's going on now, the plan is probably to create the chaos. What comes out of it will be weak.

 

[General Jack]

Those taking up handicap parking.

Bonus
Liberal day time protesters in metro cities.

That doesn't equate to "all the illegals" that you want to deport by a long shot.

Sounds like you're willing to let the elderly die from lack of healthcare service, fewer homes being built to meet demand, and higher prices in the grocery store because there's no one to harvest the produce... just so you can see less brown people in this country.

 

[Rickyvol77]

That doesn't equate to "all the illegals" that you want to deport by a long shot.

Sounds like you're willing to let the elderly die from lack of healthcare service, fewer homes being built to meet demand, and higher prices in the grocery store because there's no one to harvest the produce... just so you can see less brown people in this country.

LOL "US can't live without illegal slave labor" is such a dumb take

 

[CobbVol]

Who does the deeming?

The military and police when they are not paid.

 

[General Jack]

This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.

Can you site an example of regime change that was achieved through air strikes? In particular, a regime of religious fanaticism?

 

[Vol8188]

Can you site an example of regime change that was achieved through air strikes? In particular, a regime of religious fanaticism?

Regimes have changed through far less than military air strikes (see Iran in 1979). So I’m not sure why you’d believe air strikes cannot achieve that.

How fanatic the regime is, is not the key factor. But rather how aligned are they with the population, which is pretty low.

You also seem to be discounting the fact that no country has ever had the type of air power we currently have

 

[General Jack]

LOL "US can't live without illegal slave labor" is such a dumb take

Then you must be ready to explain to us, in detail, how to replace 7-8 million jobs in healthcare, agriculture and constructions currently worked by illegal immigrants using actual data.

And I'm sure you're aware that those replacement workers would happily accept the lower wages and working conditions of those jobs.

 

[Vol8188]

So Iran descends into anarchy and then we sit back and hope that whatever emerges from the chaos is better?

That's the plan?

Not at all. Does Trump seem like a guy who takes a passive approach to foreign policy?

 

[BeardedVol]

Not at all. Does Trump seem like a guy who takes a passive approach to foreign policy?

So explain the plan that has been espoused by Trump, and please cite your work, since Trump seems to have yet to settle on what he believes the goal of the operation is.

 

[General Jack]

Regimes have changed through far less than military air strikes (see Iran in 1979). So I’m not sure why you’d believe air strikes cannot achieve that.

How fanatic the regime is, is not the key factor. But rather how aligned are they with the population, which is pretty low.

You also seem to be discounting the fact that no country has ever had the type of air power we currently have

The internet disagrees with you:

According to historical analysis and expert consensus as of 2026, a regime has never been toppled through airpower alone, despite over a century of attempts. Airpower can weaken regimes, degrade military capacity, or enable internal uprisings (e.g., Libya 2011), but it struggles to produce regime change without ground forces or local rebel forces to seal the victory.

Key historical examples and expert insights:

• Libya 2011: While NATO airstrikes were critical, it was an intervention on behalf of local rebels who ultimately finished the regime on the ground, making it a case of air-enabled uprising rather than air-only victory.
• Yugoslavia 1999: Slobodan Milošević conceded to end the air campaign, but he was not immediately removed from power until a later domestic uprising.
• Expert Perspective: Scholars like Robert Pape argue that airpower alone does not constitute regime change because it fails to replace the existing structure.
  Time Magazine +4

Cases frequently cited in studies show that even massive aerial bombardments—such as in North Vietnam, Iraq, or Syria—failed to topple leaders without the accompanying threat or action of ground invasion.

 

[Weezer]

Without regime change, there is no victory.

Regime change will have to come from the people. Do the people who want regime change outnumber the people who don't? And are they willing to fight for it? Nothing is achieved by setting up a puppet government destined to fail. Afghanistan proved that.

 

[Weezer]

This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.

We've destroyed "their economy", such as it was, while harming our economy as well. Iran isn't winning, but neither are we. Victory is not bombing the crap out of them then leaving them to rebuild, only angrier at us now than before.

 

[EasternVol]

Regimes have changed through far less than military air strikes (see Iran in 1979). So I’m not sure why you’d believe air strikes cannot achieve that.

Iran in 79 was far more than air strikes, not far less. The Iranian people were the catalysts and agents of change.

How fanatic the regime is, is not the key factor. But rather how aligned are they with the population, which is pretty low.

There's an insight into 79.

You also seem to be discounting the fact that no country has ever had the type of air power we currently have

It doesn’t matter without popular support.

 

[Persian Vol]

Regime change will have to come from the people. Do the people who want regime change outnumber the people who don't? And are they willing to fight for it? Nothing is achieved by setting up a puppet government destined to fail. Afghanistan proved that.

Estimates show 80% of the populace is anti regime. They have not been popular for a while. The issue is military crack down. Weeks ago prior to the war they were protesting in record breaking numbers, and as a result got massacred, with over 40,000 estimated dead. The IRGC consists of 200k carefully vetted soldiers whose entire existence in life is to protect the regime. Contrast that with the populace with zero weapons or training. Any uprising will lead to certain death, as shown. The government is corrupt and despicable. But to assume the Iranian people can meaningfully revolt is a lack of understanding of the true dynamic. It’s a hostage state.

 

[Weezer]

Estimates show 80% of the populace is anti regime. They have not been popular for a while. The issue is military crack down. Weeks ago prior to the war they were protesting in record breaking numbers, and as a result got massacred, with over 40,000 estimated dead. The IRGC consists of 200k carefully vetted soldiers whose entire existence in life is to protect the regime. Contrast that with the populace with zero weapons or training. Any uprising will lead to certain death, as shown. The government is corrupt and despicable. But to assume the Iranian people can meaningfully revolt is a lack of understanding of the true dynamic. It’s a hostage state.

I'm not insensitive to their plight, but if they can't fight to take power, how do they maintain power? Maybe someone should look at arming the opposition. And by someone, I mean Israel, not the U.S.This is more Israel's fight than it is ours, IMO.

 

[CobbVol]

So explain the plan that has been espoused by Trump, and please cite your work, since Trump seems to have yet to settle on what he believes the goal of the operation is.

President Trump during his campaign made clear 74 times, second only to a secure border, that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.

• President Trump (March 2): “Our objectives are clear. First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones — pretty good ones they make. Second, we’re annihilating their navy… Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon… And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
• Vice President JD Vance (March 2): “Whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it’s incidental to the President’s primary objective here — which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb.”
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio (March 2): “The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy… That is the clear objective of this mission.”
• U.S. Central Command Commander Admiral Brad Cooper (March 3): “Our military in the Middle East is undertaking an unprecedented operation to eliminate Iran’s ability to threaten Americans, as they’ve been doing for nearly half a century.”
• Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby (March 3): “I think I can lay out once again the objectives of the military campaign… which are focused on addressing the ability of the Islamic Republic to project military power… And that’s primarily the missile forces of the Islamic Republic, which had obviously been growing substantially and posed a very serious threat… as well as the ability to produce that, and then the Iranian navy.”
• Secretary Rubio (March 3): “Our objectives remain, as they’ve been identified from the beginning and the President laid out clearly yesterday. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and we will not allow Iran to hide behind the immunity of a massive short-term ballistic missile inventory, or the ability to make them or launch them… As well as the destruction of their navy.”
• Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (March 4): “The mission is laser-focused: obliterate Iran’s missiles and drones and facilities that produce them, annihilate its navy and critical security infrastructure, and sever their pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran will never possess a nuclear bomb.”
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine (March 4): “The Operation was again launched with clear military objectives designed to dismantle Iran’s ability to project power outside of its borders, both today and in the future. First, we are targeting and eliminating Iran’s ballistic missile systems to prevent them from threatening the U.S. forces, partners, and interests in the region. Second, we are destroying the Iranian navy, degrading its capacity capability and ability to conduct operations… Third, we’re ensuring Iran cannot rapidly rebuild or reconstitute its combat capability.”
• Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt (March 4): “At the beginning of Operation Epic Fury, launched last weekend, President Trump laid out clear objectives to the American people on what the U.S. military seeks to accomplish through these major combat operations. Number one, destroy the regime’s deadly ballistic missiles and completely raze their missile industry to the ground. Number two, annihilate the Iranian regime’s navy… Number three, Operation Epic Fury will ensure the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the free world and attack our armed forces… Number four, this mission will guarantee Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon.”
• Admiral Cooper (March 5): “We will systemically dismantle Iran’s missile production capability for the future, and that’s absolutely in progress…”
• Leavitt (March 6): “We are well on our way to achieving those objectives — annihilating Iran’s navy… taking out the ballistic missile threat that Iran posed to the United States and our troops and bases in the region… ensuring Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon, as well, and significantly weakening their proxies in the region.”
• Secretary Rubio (March 9): “It is important to continue to remind the American people of why it is that the greatest military in the history of the world is engaged in this operation. It is to destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles both by destroying their missiles and their launchers, destroy the factories that make these missiles, and destroy their navy.”
• Secretary Hegseth (March 10): “[Our objectives] are straightforward and we are executing them with ruthless precision. One, destroy their missile stockpiles, their missile launchers, and their defense industrial base — missiles and their ability to make them. Two, destroy their navy. And three, permanently deny Iran nuclear weapons forever.”
• General Caine (March 10): “The joint force remains focused on three military objectives…”
• Leavitt (March 10): “Moving forward, the stated objectives for Operation Epic Fury remain the same: destroy the terrorist regime’s ballistic missiles, raze their Iranian missile industry to the ground, ensure their terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region, and ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.”

 

[Vol8188]

So explain the plan that has been espoused by Trump, and please cite your work, since Trump seems to have yet to settle on what he believes the goal of the operation is.

What specific information are you looking for?

 

[MontyPython]

Your copy and paste multiple pages from AI posting style is embarrassing. But I’ll go ahead and dismantle this for you without AI in a few simple sentences.

Vietnam had allies. Who is aiding Iran right now? O yeah, no one. If anything one of their biggest allies is openly aiding us

I truly am sorry you refuse to recognize the basic tenet that successful wars are decided by whether strategic political objectives are achieved not tactical battles.

Again, list Trump's objectives and describe how we've achieved them.

 

[Vol8188]

The internet disagrees with you:

According to historical analysis and expert consensus as of 2026, a regime has never been toppled through airpower alone, despite over a century of attempts. Airpower can weaken regimes, degrade military capacity, or enable internal uprisings (e.g., Libya 2011), but it struggles to produce regime change without ground forces or local rebel forces to seal the victory.

Key historical examples and expert insights:

• Libya 2011: While NATO airstrikes were critical, it was an intervention on behalf of local rebels who ultimately finished the regime on the ground, making it a case of air-enabled uprising rather than air-only victory.
• Yugoslavia 1999: Slobodan Milošević conceded to end the air campaign, but he was not immediately removed from power until a later domestic uprising.
• Expert Perspective: Scholars like Robert Pape argue that airpower alone does not constitute regime change because it fails to replace the existing structure.
  Time Magazine +4

Cases frequently cited in studies show that even massive aerial bombardments—such as in North Vietnam, Iraq, or Syria—failed to topple leaders without the accompanying threat or action of ground invasion.

Good for them.

 

[MontyPython]

No Iran thought we would stop by now. In the past we would lob a few bombs, and they would say we'll behave. Rinse and repeat.

Like it or not we are in it now. Finish the job.

Define "finish the job". Be specific.

 

[Vol8188]

We've destroyed "their economy", such as it was, while harming our economy as well. Iran isn't winning, but neither are we. Victory is not bombing the crap out of them then leaving them to rebuild, only angrier at us now than before.

No war is without economic cost. He not proclaimed we have won, but rather “are winning” which appears obvious.

Who said anything about leaving them to rebuild?

 

[Majors]

That doesn't equate to "all the illegals" that you want to deport by a long shot.

Sounds like you're willing to let the elderly die from lack of healthcare service, fewer homes being built to meet demand, and higher prices in the grocery store because there's no one to harvest the produce... just so you can see less brown people in this country.

I said start with.

That’s also a slightly tolerated racist comment on your end. The illegals to be treated as a service/slave workers in fields. We have 7.6M unemployed right now.

 

[MOOOOONEY]

This thread feels detached from reality. Massive strikes in Iran leaving them without anything resembling a functional economy. They lost their leader and his son is likely in a coma. They have no Air Force. Their navy is being depleted. 90% of their missile launches are being intercepted.

But if you read this thread people will openly proclaim Iran is winning.

1. Iran is not winning

2. The American people are not winning

3. War contractors, oil companies, and politicians are winning

 

[BeardedVol]

What specific information are you looking for?

What is the general plan for this operation, what are the goals, and the expected outcomes of the war being waged against Iran?

 

[Vol8188]

Iran in 79 was far more than air strikes, not far less. The Iranian people were the catalysts and agents of change.

There's an insight into 79.

It doesn’t matter without popular support.

You don’t believe we have popular support? And Iran was far less than air strikes. Wha do you see in 79 that you consider so much more?