300 BILLION DOLLARS
- Thread starter bohunr
- Start date
But that is essentially what Iran has done for decades, albeit long distance, isn't it? Therein lies the problem. Trump is absolutely right that Iran cannot be allowed nuclear weapons and that the straight has been considered international waters for decades. Now that they have learned that they can hold the entire world hostage by closing the canal, and judging from past experiences with them in violating all prior treaties, the way I see it is regime change is only chance of achieving an acceptable solution. What am I missing?
The fact that "the powers that be" in Iran have chosen to end negotiations just clarifies the fact they have no intention of making a deal, again IMO.
I suspect that is a major concern of DJT in tapping the brakes on more aggressive attacks (collateral damage).
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
The Israeli government are the chosen ones as we installed that gov years ago. Thats why they are referred to as our chosen ally.
You’re not wrong that there’s been conflict for decades, but it’s not really been a direct Iran vs. U.S. homeland situation.
Most of it has played out in the region—U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.—and most of it has been through proxy groups rather than uniformed Iranian troops. That’s a different model than a straight-up state attacking another state’s homeland.
Beirut in 1983 is often brought up—a bombing tied to Hezbollah, with Iranian backing and support. That kind of thing has happened over time, but it’s still not the same as direct strikes on the U.S. mainland. The pattern has been similar: embassy bombings, kidnappings, and attacks on U.S. personnel in the region carried out by militant groups with Iranian backing, while Iran denies involvement.
So the issue isn’t really “they’ve already attacked us here.” It’s a long-running proxy conflict in a region where we’re forward deployed.
We are talking about proxy warfare like it’s some exotic tactic “other countries” use.
We have been running that playbook for decades—funding, training, arming, and backing groups or governments across the globe whenever it fits our agenda. Cold War conflicts, Afghanistan in the 80s, Ukraine more recently, modern security partnerships… pick your era.
Funny how it only becomes a moral outrage when someone else reads from the same handbook.
We have been running that playbook for decades—funding, training, arming, and backing groups or governments across the globe whenever it fits our agenda. Cold War conflicts, Afghanistan in the 80s, Ukraine more recently, modern security partnerships… pick your era.
Funny how it only becomes a moral outrage when someone else reads from the same handbook.
Even if we had regime change tomorrow, the underlying structures, rival groups, and religious sects don’t just reset—they fight each other in the vacuum that follows. Look what happened in the years after we removed Saddam.
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
I was thinking this very same thing this morning. Everyone's playbook has all the same plays, nothing is new.
If Trump is absolutely right that Iran cannot be allowed nuclear weapons, then why stop 10 yards from the finish line with epic fury?
If the objective was truly to end the nuclear threat, why aren't we fighting to control the ground around Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow while engineers dig out and dismantled it once and for all?
Instead, we're right back to talking about negotiating another deal with a regime that has a long history of violating agreements when it suits its interests. Either the threat is serious enough to justify decisive action, or it isn't.
"Half measures availed us nothing. We stood at a turning point. With complete abandonment, we asked for His protection and care..."
Yep, and in the process we've made a lot of enemies. We'd be foolish not to keep our heads on a swivel.
It’s just easier to spin up a good-versus-evil, right-versus-wrong narrative and spoon-feed it to the masses. Fire up the media and let it run 24/7.
After all, if you control the media, you control the narrative. And if you control the narrative, you control the masses.
We had no choice. We had to act. The next threat could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
After all, if you control the media, you control the narrative. And if you control the narrative, you control the masses.
We had no choice. We had to act. The next threat could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
When you combine "Death to America" with refusal to dispense with nuclear weapons grade uranium enrichment, that's direct enough to fit my definition.
Yep, proxy groups is their benchmark MO alright.
Granted, so far they do not have the capability of direct attacks on the homeland other than their covert actions/attempts over the years. I'm sure that if the Mullas ever get their hands on nuclear weapons we would be the first to know.
Israelis would be the first, they're closest & easist to reach compared to us
We could always say "fine, keep your enriched uranium. We'll just be back as needed to blow shit up again to make sure you can't use it"
We could always say "fine, keep your enriched uranium. We'll just be back as needed to blow shit up again to make sure you can't use it"
Good questions all.
“Death to America” is rhetoric tied to opposition to U.S. policy—not a literal operational directive to strike the homeland. You can take it seriously, but it’s still not the same thing as direct kinetic attacks on U.S. territory.When you combine "Death to America" with refusal to dispense with nuclear weapons grade uranium enrichment, that's direct enough to fit my definition.
Yep, proxy groups is their benchmark MO alright.
Granted, so far they do not have the capability of direct attacks on the homeland other than their covert actions/attempts over the years. I'm sure that if the Mullas ever get their hands on nuclear weapons we would be the first to know.
That said, this was also under the so-called “moderate” faction we’re talking about. We took out the more moderate hardliner of that era, and now his son is more hardliner. Leadership has changed, bombs have been dropped, and yet the strategy has cycled back to negotiations.
So why did we stop at the 10-yard line?
After seeing how this last round of bombing went, I think there’s a pretty extreme case of cold feet setting in—unless we get sucked in further with our current military posture.
spotstalkshoot
Well-known member
There have been numerous terrorist linked attacks in the U.S. Attacks don't need to be nuclear weapons, can be trucks/guns/violent protests or as Europe is finding out-rape of women and other crimes against citizens by Islamic immigrants. Cyber attacks directed by Iranian based/funded individuals directed at our infrastructure could also severely limit our ability to protect against kinetic strikes. Islam intends to kill western civilization, whether one American or 1000 at a time.
What took down the World Trade Center? Box cutters and a fanatical ideology...
Iran (and most of East and middle east countries) are tribal Gov. Just like early American Indians. Early Europe was the same. Big central Gov were formed by FORCE. And fall by corruption! Once formed they get stable economy, leaders begin to 'steal' funds and it goes back to tribal. Arabs are just learning this, Persians haven't yet. Most of Africa hasn't figured it out yet either.
"Box cutters and a fanatical ideology..." and lousy immigration policy.
"Box cutters and a fanatical ideology..." and lousy immigration policy.