Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Get out of NATO…..yesterday.

---

Well, yes, but I would have preferred we do that because our NATO allies are slowly turning into -stans allied in a facist political union run from Brussels.

Not because Israel dragged us into another stupid war.

---

Realitybites said:

---

A March 11 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that 20 to 30 percent of global fertilizer exports, including about 35 percent, of urea shipments, transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2023.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

My guess, and yes it’s a guess, is that there is going to be major escalation in Iran. Joe Kent isn’t some wilting flower. He wouldn’t resign over a bombing strike or two. He even supported some action being taken and was an Iran hawk. We’ll see soon enough.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) March 17, 2026

---

Yeah, I would say. Some idiots think these guys know and do nothing. Guy just dedicated his life to working on protecting American since 9/11. His resignation letter is linked below. You may not agree with all his politics, I don't, but he knows war and intel.

It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people believe that all Government employees do nothing of value.



Joe Kent resignation as posted to Twitter - Joe Kent - Wikipedia

In a real quagmire here, it is a mess now that it is on and finishing Iran seems only logical move, but the cost is going to be too high for little return.

---

The operation has lasted less than a month so far. It may be a little early to characterize it as being a "real quagmire."

Do you know which war he lost his wife in? I am wondering whether he blames Israel for us removing Saddam from Kuwait or for removing Saddam from Baghdad, or maybe it was some other war he attributes to Israel? Perhaps Afghanistan?

Trump has never done diplomacy properly.

---

You still support the decision to remove Saddam?

Easily the most counter-productive and destructive move by any President in my lifetime.

It did nothing to benefit America. It did, however, benefit Israel as they thrive on chaos and instability.

---

We should have removed him promptly after he invaded Kuwait. Could have been in and out in a matter of months.

Israel does not thrive on chaos and instability.

---

They absolutely do.

They took back the Golan Heights after the Syrian regime feel.

They are now using seizing this moment to take 20% of Lebanon.

And no. We never should have never removed Saddam. He was an oppositional force to Iran. After we removed him, Iranian backed Shia militias took over Iraq. America wasted $8 trillion dollars and ended with nothing to show for it.

Not to mention the Iraq civil war was the prelude to horde of refugee migrants getting displaced from the middle east and invading all of Europe.

I have to assume anyone who says removing Saddam was the right move works for the MIC and personally profit from endless wars.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

During WW2 gas was strictly rationed.

---

Everything was, at least essential goods were

---

Yep

Imagine the epic meltdown if our entitled population had to make similar sacrifices during this war ?

---

And interesting thought experiment would be…can any Western nation today make the sacrifices necessary to win a WWII like struggle?

Not talking "produce as much hardware as they did back then". But a real "can the People and State make the endless sacrifice in money, blood, and physiological stress needed to win"

I suspect the answer is no…..

Most people don't want to die or sacrifice all they have for a post-nation state, post religious order built on making everything a modern mere economic zone

---

100%

Having a shared culture, history, and lineage can rally a nation around the flag and motivate people to sacrifice for the greater good.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.

---

Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.

---

Why?

---

For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

---

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.

---

Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.

---

That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?

---

1979.

---

Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.

---

I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

---

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

---

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

---

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.

---

I don't think that's unreasonable. But the people who know for sure are the Iraelis, right? Problem is you cannot trust what they say. Facts are not their mission, the survival of Israel is.

---

The expansion of Israel is their mission, though I suspect survival is a growing concern since the war started. I doubt they know any more about Iran's nuclear program than we do. They couldn't care less about it, in a sense. It's a pretext for action, and if they don't have proof, they're happy to lie.

---

That's not fair or accurate though. You could say that about Bibi but not the whole country. Survival is the priority for all of them, and yes for some, they see expansion as survival.

They are the only ones who probably have operatives in Iran's nuclear research program even now. Iran arrested dozens yesterday, I think it was, trying to root Israeli spies out.

You can accurately say that many Israelis use the theoretical nuclear Iran as a way to get what they want, but none of us really know how close to reality their nuclear capability is. Certainly not the UN inspectors. The UN isn't even sure how much nuclear material they have, so obviously they never knew where all of it was.

I can buy that they largely put a pause on nuclear weapons development at some point, and that Trump was too hasty in doing away with the treaty. Otherwise they'd have a nuke today. But I cannot buy that the UN knows the entire extent of their nuclear research.

---

The UN repeatedly reported that they did not have full access to inspect all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Their reports were always of what they saw, but with reservations. There was never definitive word on Iran's nuclear capability. This was pointed out to Sam from the UN website in other threads.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.

---

Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.

---

Why?

---

For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

---

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.

---

Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.

---

That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?

---

1979.

---

Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.

---

I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

---

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

---

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

---

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.

---

I don't think that's unreasonable. But the people who know for sure are the Iraelis, right? Problem is you cannot trust what they say. Facts are not their mission, the survival of Israel is.

---

The expansion of Israel is their mission, though I suspect survival is a growing concern since the war started. I doubt they know any more about Iran's nuclear program than we do. They couldn't care less about it, in a sense. It's a pretext for action, and if they don't have proof, they're happy to lie.

---

That's not fair or accurate though. You could say that about Bibi but not the whole country. Survival is the priority for all of them, and yes for some, they see expansion as survival.

They are the only ones who probably have operatives in Iran's nuclear research program even now. Iran arrested dozens yesterday, I think it was, trying to root Israeli spies out.

You can accurately say that many Israelis use the theoretical nuclear Iran as a way to get what they want, but none of us really know how close to reality their nuclear capability is. Certainly not the UN inspectors. The UN isn't even sure how much nuclear material they have, so obviously they never knew where all of it was.

I can buy that they largely put a pause on nuclear weapons development at some point, and that Trump was too hasty in doing away with the treaty. Otherwise they'd have a nuke today. But I cannot buy that the UN knows the entire extent of their nuclear research.

---

The UN repeatedly reported that they did not have full access to inspect all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Their reports were always of what they saw, but with reservations. There was never definitive word on Iran's nuclear capability. This was pointed out to Sam from the UN website in other threads.

---

And I probably pointed out that when you say "full access," you're talking about demands that were far in excess of Iran's obligations (and Iran had complied with many of them nonetheless).

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist..

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain…

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

1. Yep, Kent has every right to resign…but not to do the "resistance" nonsense of undermining the President you serve by staying on and doing what you personally want.

2. And on Iran…Trump is right to be mad

We have been doing the heavy lifting on the Ukraine conflict (something that Europeans benefit from having a Ukraine free and aligned with them and a Russia weakened…far more benefit for them…than we would get honestly since it's less important to American security)

And of course there was this little thing called the former-Yugoslavia wars that Europe wanted us to intervene in…something we did for their sake…since we had almost nothing on the line in the balkans. But we led NATO into a military intervention since they wanted the area pacified.

And we have supported them time and again with money & men even when they would not meet basic low levels of NATO spending commitments.

Now Iran tries to choke off the worlds oil supply (all while being a Islamo-fascist regime that has funded terrorism for 40 years and desires a nuclear weapon) and yet now Europe tells us "no luck…sorry we can't help"

Pathetic

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

President Trump: “You have to remember, we have 45,000 troops in Japan, 45,000 in South Korea, and 50,000 in Germany.”

We defend all these countries, and then I ask them: “Do you have any minesweepers?”

They say, “Well, would it be possible for us not to get involved?” pic.twitter.com/KgcCCN8QTO

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 16, 2026

---

It's not unreasonable to expect every country that depends on oil from the Gulf to help escort their tankers through the Gulf. We don't get oil from there anymore because of our large volume of domestic production. In defending Gulf shipping, we are acting on behalf of everyone else.

---

Nobody asked Trump to do this. There was no coalition. There was no discussion with allies on support. He started a war with Iran because he felt it in his bones, and Netanyahu told him to do so.

I decided to remove a dam without telling you, and now we have flooding problems. It will be in your benefit for the flooding to stop as now your property floods worse than mine. So, pay for it. Your share is... Sound reasonable?

My money is you would be pissed and even possibly sue me. He caused this mess without getting any support. You guys see nothing wrong here?

---

If the Washington Post reporting is accurate, Saudi Arabia did.

I see plenty wrong here, but I also recognize that we kicked the can down the road for many, many years with half measures and hopium.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.

---

Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.

---

Why?

---

For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

---

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.

---

Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.

---

That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?

---

1979.

---

Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.

---

I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

---

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

---

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

---

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.

---

I don't think that's unreasonable. But the people who know for sure are the Iraelis, right? Problem is you cannot trust what they say. Facts are not their mission, the survival of Israel is.

---

The expansion of Israel is their mission, though I suspect survival is a growing concern since the war started. I doubt they know any more about Iran's nuclear program than we do. They couldn't care less about it, in a sense. It's a pretext for action, and if they don't have proof, they're happy to lie.

---

That's not fair or accurate though. You could say that about Bibi but not the whole country. Survival is the priority for all of them, and yes for some, they see expansion as survival.

They are the only ones who probably have operatives in Iran's nuclear research program even now. Iran arrested dozens yesterday, I think it was, trying to root Israeli spies out.

You can accurately say that many Israelis use the theoretical nuclear Iran as a way to get what they want, but none of us really know how close to reality their nuclear capability is. Certainly not the UN inspectors. The UN isn't even sure how much nuclear material they have, so obviously they never knew where all of it was.

I can buy that they largely put a pause on nuclear weapons development at some point, and that Trump was too hasty in doing away with the treaty. Otherwise they'd have a nuke today. But I cannot buy that the UN knows the entire extent of their nuclear research.

---

The UN repeatedly reported that they did not have full access to inspect all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Their reports were always of what they saw, but with reservations. There was never definitive word on Iran's nuclear capability. This was pointed out to Sam from the UN website in other threads.

---

And I probably pointed out that when you say "full access," you're talking about demands that were far in excess of Iran's obligations (and Iran had complied with many of them nonetheless).

---

Even though the UN was concerned about not getting the obligated access.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A March 11 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that 20 to 30 percent of global fertilizer exports, including about 35 percent, of urea shipments, transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2023.

---

We can't make more than half our own urea! What are we doing to ourselves?

Is our livestock not producing enough?
Do we need beer drinkers to donate?


"In 2024, the United States produced approximately
5.8 million tons of urea, with domestic production rising by about 3.2% compared to 2023. While production increased, the U.S. remained a significant importer, with imports reaching 5.1 million tons to meet high demand."

---

The guy who got “massages” with Jeffrey Epstein is weighing in everyone. https://t.co/EOrJIK5Rx7

— Dave Smith (@ComicDaveSmith) March 17, 2026

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A March 11 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that 20 to 30 percent of global fertilizer exports, including about 35 percent, of urea shipments, transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2023.

---

We can't make more than half our own urea! What are we doing to ourselves?

Is our livestock not producing enough?
Do we need beer drinkers to donate?


"In 2024, the United States produced approximately
5.8 million tons of urea, with domestic production rising by about 3.2% compared to 2023. While production increased, the U.S. remained a significant importer, with imports reaching 5.1 million tons to meet high demand."

---

It wasn't a problem until we made it a problem.

The theory of "competitive advantage" states that you specialize in the areas that you have an advantage. As a nation, we were doing that brilliantly, until…

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

A March 11 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that 20 to 30 percent of global fertilizer exports, including about 35 percent, of urea shipments, transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2023.

---

We can't make more than half our own urea! What are we doing to ourselves?

Is our livestock not producing enough?
Do we need beer drinkers to donate?


"In 2024, the United States produced approximately
5.8 million tons of urea, with domestic production rising by about 3.2% compared to 2023. While production increased, the U.S. remained a significant importer, with imports reaching 5.1 million tons to meet high demand."

---

It wasn't a problem until we made it a problem.

The theory of "competitive advantage" states that you specialize in the areas that you have an advantage. As a nation, we were doing that brilliantly, until…

---

Comparative.

But to add to your point, we were also able to manipulate others comparative advantage due to our consumption power and currency.

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist and undermine like the embedded democrats do.

He's setting himself up for some good talk show money if he choses to go that route.

The conflict drags on. Trump desperately needs oil flow to continue through the straight for political reasons. I'm wondering why we don't escort ships through. I suspect it's currently too risky for our very expensive naval ships. Even if Japan was to mobilize their navy (which is probably modest) how long would it take to get there?

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain. Is droning the Gulf countries igoing to backfire? We will see.

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

The US economy has its own oil reserves.

Japan, India , China and most of Europe are the ones that need access through the Straits the most.

Past time to bomb Iranian oil facilities.

It's the obvious target.

---

Squeezing out Iranian supply squeezes everyone's supply, and thus price inflation.

---

Good grief......it s real ****ing war we are dealing with.

The goal is regime change otherwise these mullah's are going to just keep up their crap.

Bomb the Iranian oil fields and the locals will demand a new government when they begin to go hungry.

Really think the United States gave a **** about price inflaction when we were sinking the huge Japanese oil tanker fleet ?

---

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist and undermine like the embedded democrats do.

He's setting himself up for some good talk show money if he choses to go that route.

The conflict drags on. Trump desperately needs oil flow to continue through the straight for political reasons. I'm wondering why we don't escort ships through. I suspect it's currently too risky for our very expensive naval ships. Even if Japan was to mobilize their navy (which is probably modest) how long would it take to get there?

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain. Is droning the Gulf countries igoing to backfire? We will see.

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

The US economy has its own oil reserves.

Japan, India , China and most of Europe are the ones that need access through the Straits the most.

Past time to bomb Iranian oil facilities.

It's the obvious target.

---

Squeezing out Iranian supply squeezes everyone's supply, and thus price inflation.

---

The goal is regime change otherwise these mullah's are going to just keep up their crap.

---

Has anyone in the cabinet said this is about regime change? I haven't seen that stated as a goal.

---

BREAKING:

Iran confirms that the National Security Advisor and Iran’s de facto leader Ali Larijani was killed in Israeli airstrikes last night pic.twitter.com/9qExyQGxiQ

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 17, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist and undermine like the embedded democrats do.

He's setting himself up for some good talk show money if he choses to go that route.

The conflict drags on. Trump desperately needs oil flow to continue through the straight for political reasons. I'm wondering why we don't escort ships through. I suspect it's currently too risky for our very expensive naval ships. Even if Japan was to mobilize their navy (which is probably modest) how long would it take to get there?

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain. Is droning the Gulf countries igoing to backfire? We will see.

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

The US economy has its own oil reserves.

Japan, India , China and most of Europe are the ones that need access through the Straits the most.

Past time to bomb Iranian oil facilities.

It's the obvious target.

---

Squeezing out Iranian supply squeezes everyone's supply, and thus price inflation.

---

The goal is regime change otherwise these mullah's are going to just keep up their crap.

---

Has anyone in the cabinet said this is about regime change? I haven't seen that stated as a goal.

---

Things have just got real in Tel Aviv, and Israel. The actual pain and destruction have begun.

Earlier today, Iran targeted a train station in the center of the country. I didn't want to draw conclusions from it, and waited to see if it was the onset of something new.

Now,…

— Alon Mizrahi (@alon_mizrahi) March 17, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist and undermine like the embedded democrats do.

He's setting himself up for some good talk show money if he choses to go that route.

The conflict drags on. Trump desperately needs oil flow to continue through the straight for political reasons. I'm wondering why we don't escort ships through. I suspect it's currently too risky for our very expensive naval ships. Even if Japan was to mobilize their navy (which is probably modest) how long would it take to get there?

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain. Is droning the Gulf countries igoing to backfire? We will see.

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

The US economy has its own oil reserves.

Japan, India , China and most of Europe are the ones that need access through the Straits the most.

Past time to bomb Iranian oil facilities.

It's the obvious target.

---

Squeezing out Iranian supply squeezes everyone's supply, and thus price inflation.

---

The goal is regime change otherwise these mullah's are going to just keep up their crap.

---

Has anyone in the cabinet said this is about regime change? I haven't seen that stated as a goal.

---

Your post suggests you want the mullahs to remain in charge?

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

During WW2 gas was strictly rationed.

---

Everything was, at least essential goods were

---

Yep

Imagine the epic meltdown if our entitled population had to make similar sacrifices during this war ?

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Hard to know how reliable some of these reports are

BREAKING:

Iran confirms that the National Security Advisor and Iran’s de facto leader Ali Larijani was killed in Israeli airstrikes last night pic.twitter.com/9qExyQGxiQ

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 17, 2026

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Things have just got real in Tel Aviv, and Israel. The actual pain and destruction have begun.

Earlier today, Iran targeted a train station in the center of the country. I didn't want to draw conclusions from it, and waited to see if it was the onset of something new.

Now,…

— Alon Mizrahi (@alon_mizrahi) March 17, 2026

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

National Counterterrorism Center resigns over Iran war

---

And you know what that means….

---

It means I don't post the link.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/national-counterterrorism-center-resigns-iran-war-rcna263692

---

What does his resignation mean? I don't know

---

Embarrassment in the near term. Probably not enough authority to impact the agency.

---

Another perspective:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/good-riddance/

At first blush, the resignation of America's Director of the National Counterterrorism Center in wartime indeed, in protest against a war with the world's foremost exporter of Islamist terror is an unnerving development. Fortunately, the former director, Joe Kent, authored an open letter explaining the thinking that led him to abandon his post. A cursory survey of his deliberative process should reassure trepidatious Americans that they're better off without him.

---

Kent is no snowflake. He was as MAGA as it gets until MAGA went full neocon.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist and undermine like the embedded democrats do.

He's setting himself up for some good talk show money if he choses to go that route.

The conflict drags on. Trump desperately needs oil flow to continue through the straight for political reasons. I'm wondering why we don't escort ships through. I suspect it's currently too risky for our very expensive naval ships. Even if Japan was to mobilize their navy (which is probably modest) how long would it take to get there?

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain. Is droning the Gulf countries igoing to backfire? We will see.

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

The US economy has its own oil reserves.

Japan, India , China and most of Europe are the ones that need access through the Straits the most.

Past time to bomb Iranian oil facilities.

It's the obvious target.

---

Squeezing out Iranian supply squeezes everyone's supply, and thus price inflation.

---

The goal is regime change otherwise these mullah's are going to just keep up their crap.

---

Has anyone in the cabinet said this is about regime change? I haven't seen that stated as a goal.

---

Your post suggests you want the mullahs to remain in charge?

---

Not sure how you are implying that from my question.

Kai was talking about regime change and I wondered if I had missed an update from Trump or the cabinet. The last time I saw the list of stated objectives from Leavitt about a week ago regime change was not on there.

---

Given Iran's undeniable sponsorship of terrorism and nearly half a century of 'Death to America' chants at all levels of their leadership, regime change should be an obvious goal if we could do it.

---

Israel’s killing of Iranian security chief Ali Larijani shakes a regime that had shown signs of holding on. It was accompanied by a successful Israeli attack on the head of the country’s repressive Basij militia the same day.

Read more: 🔗 https://t.co/In9CqbBlhw pic.twitter.com/LRJ5yUnuUA

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) March 17, 2026

Cooper: The president seemed to indicate that he had not been briefed that Iran might strike out at its neighbors or try to shut down the strait of hormuz. Is that conceivable to you?

Bolton: I know for a fact that he was aware of those potentials. I raised the option of regime… pic.twitter.com/Kqm2xrxgQv

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 18, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Kent did this correctly. If your boss is going in directions you can't support and won't listen to your advice, you resign. You don't resist and undermine like the embedded democrats do.

He's setting himself up for some good talk show money if he choses to go that route.

The conflict drags on. Trump desperately needs oil flow to continue through the straight for political reasons. I'm wondering why we don't escort ships through. I suspect it's currently too risky for our very expensive naval ships. Even if Japan was to mobilize their navy (which is probably modest) how long would it take to get there?

Iran is like if we are going down, we are going to make everyone feel the pain. Is droning the Gulf countries igoing to backfire? We will see.

This is going to really strain relations within NATO and the Ukraine war. Next time Ukraine comes with its hand out, I suspect Trump is going to send them to Europe and rightfully so.

---

The US economy has its own oil reserves.

Japan, India , China and most of Europe are the ones that need access through the Straits the most.

Past time to bomb Iranian oil facilities.

It's the obvious target.

---

Squeezing out Iranian supply squeezes everyone's supply, and thus price inflation.

---

The goal is regime change otherwise these mullah's are going to just keep up their crap.

---

Has anyone in the cabinet said this is about regime change? I haven't seen that stated as a goal.

---

Your post suggests you want the mullahs to remain in charge?

---

Not sure how you are implying that from my question.

Kai was talking about regime change and I wondered if I had missed an update from Trump or the cabinet. The last time I saw the list of stated objectives from Leavitt about a week ago regime change was not on there.

---

Given Iran's undeniable sponsorship of terrorism and nearly half a century of 'Death to America' chants at all levels of their leadership, regime change should be an obvious goal if we could do it.

---

Is it our goal?

---