Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

I have no doubt the US will win this fight

---

What constitutes "winning" for us?

---

And why use US troops.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting how the resident pant wetters attack anyone for reminding them of the context.

We are at war.

Act like you want the US to win

---

We are in a ONE MAN-PIGGY war. Pathetic we are here. Embarrassing, but we gotta win. Never should have happened. I hope Piggy frys. Impeach that MFer

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

You are ignoring Trump's bizarre behavior.
Nope. It works for him. Very successfully.

Talks like an entitled pre teen....that found a new toy.
He's talking a language our adversaries understand.

Only in this case the new toy is the blood of our servicemen.
Not at all. the casualties have been remarkably low, particularly for such a robust campaign.

Hell yes our entire government was manipulated by Israeli lobbyists.......as they have been for decades.
Now you sound like JR, Porteroso and the lot. Just plumb stupid-speak, inserting a preposterous false premise - that we have no real quibble with Iran and have just been duped for decades into confronting a country that overran our embassy and kept hostages for over a year, killed thousands of our citizens, took a COS hostage and skinned him alive & sent a video of it to POTUS, took a USMC Col hostage and hung him, pulled a US Navy Seabee out of his seat on a civilian airliner and shot him in the back of the head and dumped him out on the tarmac just to send a message, destabilized Lebanon, created the second most deadly terror group ever (Hamas), created Hamas which committed the second largest single day terror attack death tolls on 7th October, created the Houthis ability to interdict international shipping in the Red Sea, developed ballistic missiles capable of striking all of Europe (our Nato allies), was working steadily toward intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking a country literally on the other side of the planet (us), and built a nuclear weapons program which generated enough 60% uranium to build a dozen nuclear warheads. Oh. And which stood in the street and beat itself bloody while chanting "death to America" several times a year.

But its too late now to turn back the clock.....got to destroy Iran and win this bloodfest with as few KIA's as possible.
Yes. Finally doing it. +4 decades after it was warranted. Fortunately, the bloodfest aspect is almost completely restricted to the enemy.

The danger is obvious.......Trump is enjoying the specture of this war......the world's focus on HIM.
He's not worried. He's signaling to Iran that he's confident, in control, etc...that their options are limited - surrender or die.

Hell, now he is even threatening CUBA.
No, he's not. He's just saying what is going to happen. The communist government in Cuba is going to fall. Matter of time.

Win this Iranian war asap......fight for keeps......destroy their economy .......then Trump has got to go.
LOL he not only overthrows THREE despotic regimes whose primary foreign policy focus was damaging/destroying the USA....he does it in not much more than 90 days. It's an incredible feat. It's isolated China and Russia.....robbing them of rogue-state allies and a second tier of proxies, all of them aimed at destabilizing us and/or our allies. And all you can do is ***** about how he talks.

---

Take a chill pill. You're gonna miss the greatest improvement in our geopolitical position since the fall of the Soviet Union.

---

yeah, you are just brilliant or at least you think you are. You good with this war? You good with the economy, You good with an unprovoked war, you good with a draft dodger sending our troops to die? Glad you are down with Merca today.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Trump on Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince MBS today:

“He didn’t think he would be kissing my ass. He really didn’t. And now he has to be nice to me. He better be nice to me.”

This is how the President of the United States describes America’s most important Gulf ally.

The same Saudi… pic.twitter.com/QiaA8pxRFG

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) March 28, 2026

---

When are we going to have had enough of this ***** This isn't strength, it is bully bravado. Not appropriate for POTUS.

---

No argument.

Disgusting behavior by Trump.

Maybe it is time to roll the dice with Vance in charge.

---

Trump speaks the truth. People lose their minds.

---

you are a funny little monkey. "Trump Speaks the Truth". That statement right there has rendered you and absolute gullible sheep moronic Trumpian. You showed your true trumping colors. Trump doe NOT know how to speak the truth. He is a pathological liar and you imbeciles believe it.

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

They have no problem putting boots on the ground in Southern Lebanon.

Number of American Jews who serve in the IDF: ~23,000

Number of American Jews who serve in the U.S. military: ~15,000 https://t.co/62SyP62HOL

— James Li (@5149jamesli) March 29, 2026

They started this war, Rubio confessed as much, but expect Americans to actual fight and die in it.

**** Israel.

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Inflame things - - those countries hate the people living in the land called Israel. They should have boots on the ground in this mess. What I really want to see if honest news reporters providing videos of what is really going on...

BluesBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Inflame things - - those countries hate the people living in the land called Israel. They should have boots on the ground in this mess. What I really want to see if honest news reporters providing videos of what is really going on...

---

Eff IZZY. And eff us for being so stupid to be lead around by a bunch of Jews in the ME. Yeah, that's gonna work out. Izzy needs to stand on their own 2 feet . No military help, NO money. Cut those effers off.

BluesBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Inflame things - - those countries hate the people living in the land called Israel. They should have boots on the ground in this mess. What I really want to see if honest news reporters providing videos of what is really going on...

---

Videos are not likely on US bases for security reasons, or in Iran for life and death reasons. There have been lots of videos in Israel by several news agencies. Also in the other Middle East countries that have been attacked.

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

BREAKING: Trump claims Iran has agreed to send 20 large oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz Monday as a “sign of respect”

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) March 30, 2026

Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

I have no doubt the US will win this fight

---

What constitutes "winning" for us?

---

Destruction of Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons.

Regime change

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

I have no doubt the US will win this fight

---

What constitutes "winning" for us?

---

Destruction of Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons.

Regime change

---

break the circuit of death.........

ie wipe out the funding of hezb, hamas, houthis, haggis.

- UF

D!

Guy Noir said:

---

I am concerned that Iran is a tar baby. We might keep getting stuck in this military entanglement for years and years.

---

Trump has faults aplenty......however I do not see him pulling this particular blunder.

Some of the highest quality businesses in the world are trading at extremely cheap prices. Ignore the MSM. One of the most one-sided wars in history that will end well for the U.S. and the world. And we have the potential for a large peace dividend.

One of the best times in a…

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) March 30, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

BREAKING: President Trump tells the Financial Times he wants to “take the oil in Iran” and could seize the export hub of Kharg Island.

“To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘why are you doing that?’ But…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 30, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Iran's refusal to negotiate a ceasefire has nothing to do with martyrdom or global jihad. It's a predictable (and predicted) calculation by the country with the upper hand in the war.

---

How many countries (especially those ruled by ideological regimes) have gone down to the end insisting they were winning?

I think we have several examples in history

---

The plans for this war have been set forth in policy papers for at least a couple of decades. Ground troops have been seen as a last resort. We wouldn't be talking about them (or about a ceasefire) if we were winning.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Iran's refusal to negotiate a ceasefire has nothing to do with martyrdom or global jihad. It's a predictable (and predicted) calculation by the country with the upper hand in the war.

---

How many countries (especially those ruled by ideological regimes) have gone down to the end insisting they were winning?

I think we have several examples in history

---

The plans for this war have been set forth in policy papers for at least a couple of decades. Ground troops have been seen as a last resort. We wouldn't be talking about them (or about a ceasefire) if we were winning.

---

LOL

Yeah, Iran is winning.

That's why they have had to bury most of their government and military leadership.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mister, you are so pro-mullah on this thread, Hakeem Jeffries is taking notes from you. I know Arab friends who are more supportive of the US actions than you.

---

Iran's relations with Arab countries are tense at best, so I don't know what that's supposed to prove.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Iran's refusal to negotiate a ceasefire has nothing to do with martyrdom or global jihad. It's a predictable (and predicted) calculation by the country with the upper hand in the war.

---

How many countries (especially those ruled by ideological regimes) have gone down to the end insisting they were winning?

I think we have several examples in history

---

The plans for this war have been set forth in policy papers for at least a couple of decades. Ground troops have been seen as a last resort. We wouldn't be talking about them (or about a ceasefire) if we were winning.

---

LOL

Yeah, Iran is winning.

That's why they have had to bury most of their government and military leadership.

---

Okay. To what end? If the mission was to bury Khamenei, are we done now?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mister, you are so pro-mullah on this thread, Hakeem Jeffries is taking notes from you. I know Arab friends who are more supportive of the US actions than you.

---

Iran's relations with Arab countries are tense at best, so I don't know what that's supposed to prove.

---

Considering your last pro-US post here was in mid-2022, small wonder you don't understand, Sam.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

---

Most of those 50,000 have been deployed in the region for many years.

Would takes several months to deploy the necessary combat troops, heavy armor and supplies to conduct a serious ground war.

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

---

Most of those 50,000 have been deployed in the region for many years.

Would takes several months to deploy the necessary combat troops, heavy armor and supplies to conduct a serious ground war.

---

If things don't go according to "plan", will Donald Trump use nukes in Iran? My God, I hope not. But there is nothing the man would do that would surprise me at this point.

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

---

Most of those 50,000 have been deployed in the region for many years.

Would takes several months to deploy the necessary combat troops, heavy armor and supplies to conduct a serious ground war.

---

Try several years.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

---

Most of those 50,000 have been deployed in the region for many years.

Would takes several months to deploy the necessary combat troops, heavy armor and supplies to conduct a serious ground war.

---

If things don't go according to "plan", will Donald Trump use nukes in Iran? My God, I hope not. But there is nothing the man would do that would surprise me at this point.

---

The question is twofold. First, will Israel do so? Likely answer is yes. Second, how will the major nuclear powers respond?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

---

Most of those 50,000 have been deployed in the region for many years.

Would takes several months to deploy the necessary combat troops, heavy armor and supplies to conduct a serious ground war.

---

If things don't go according to "plan", will Donald Trump use nukes in Iran? My God, I hope not. But there is nothing the man would do that would surprise me at this point.

---

The question is twofold. First, will Israel do so? Likely answer is yes. Second, how will the major nuclear powers respond?

---

Israel? Yes. I think if Trump ignites WWIII, China will be content to sit on the sidelines and pick up the pieces when it is done. They will immediately become the de-facto World Superpower. Last country standing, so to speak.

BREAKING: President Trump is weighing a military operation to extract nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium from Iran, per WSJ.

Details include:

1. This is considered a "complex and risky" mission that would likely put American forces inside the country for days or longer

2. Trump…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 30, 2026

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

When your "greatest ally" is actually your worst enemy...

Channel 12 reports that if the US launches a ground operation in Iran, Israeli troops will not take part in the combat.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/cCr12HxVib

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 29, 2026

---

I can't say if this type of ground invasion would be good or bad (my gut says stay out of land wars in the Middle East)

But this would be less of a "Jews sending Americans to fight for them" and more of a "Jewish foot soldiers inside a Muslim country would inflame things" issue

An American invasion of part or all of Iran would be likely to be more successful at getting local support if its only American troops (no Israelis)

In Gulf War I and Gulf War II it was a specific policy of America to ask Israel NOT to come along on the alliance attack on Iraq. Because it would inflame local tensions/resistance and would cause fractures with our local Arab/middle eastern allies

At the end of the day Muslims in the Middle East are less likely to resist Americans or at least acquiesce to sort term occupation by Americans (for lots of reasons) than they are to Israelis/jews

---

Sorry BS, Saudi and Company pony up. Let the Arabs be the ground force. We handled the rest.

---

50,000 U.S troops now deployed to the Middle East. This is not good.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.

---

Most of those 50,000 have been deployed in the region for many years.

Would takes several months to deploy the necessary combat troops, heavy armor and supplies to conduct a serious ground war.

---

If things don't go according to "plan", will Donald Trump use nukes in Iran? My God, I hope not. But there is nothing the man would do that would surprise me at this point.

---

The question is twofold. First, will Israel do so? Likely answer is yes. Second, how will the major nuclear powers respond?

---

Israel? Yes. I think if Trump ignites WWIII, China will be content to sit on the sidelines and pick up the pieces when it is done. They will immediately become the de-facto World Superpower. Last country standing, so to speak.

---

Maybe, but losing Iran would seriously hinder the BRICS agenda and immediately put China at the top of the list of targets for the US. I don't think they're going to let it happen.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Iran's refusal to negotiate a ceasefire has nothing to do with martyrdom or global jihad. It's a predictable (and predicted) calculation by the country with the upper hand in the war.

---

How many countries (especially those ruled by ideological regimes) have gone down to the end insisting they were winning?

I think we have several examples in history

---

The plans for this war have been set forth in policy papers for at least a couple of decades. Ground troops have been seen as a last resort. We wouldn't be talking about them (or about a ceasefire) if we were winning.

---

LOL

Yeah, Iran is winning.

That's why they have had to bury most of their government and military leadership.

---

They are playing the game of "America & Israel will run out of missiles before we run out of leaders and bodies to absorb the explosions"

It's certainly a bold…if not very innovative…strategy

I guess time will tell if that is "winning" or not

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Tell us without telling us you don't know Shia from Sunni.

Iran's refusal to negotiate a ceasefire has nothing to do with martyrdom or global jihad. It's a predictable (and predicted) calculation by the country with the upper hand in the war.

---

Lol I didn't say anything about Sunni/Shia, and Iran is most definitely not winning the war. Good Lord.

The regime is starting to come apart. Exactly as I suggested it might.

BREAKING: Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian is reportedly clashing with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as the regime begins to split over the handling of the war.

They're collapsing from within. pic.twitter.com/tnGzQNKzgX

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 29, 2026

---

Suggested it might??? You bet the mortgage... If the ends in anything other than a total regime collapse and Iranian's rejoicing in the streets you lost the house..

---

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your analytical skills. I specifically said in the initial post on the matter that I was not predicting it, but rather instantiating it as a scenario to watch for. We now see actions which fit the opening phases of such a scenario. What we see now may be all we see. Or events could devolve further. Just gotta watch.

The Iranian regime is in what almost certainly a planned survival strategy - go to ground...survive....act on pre-existing orders - with no real need for constant commo with the Hqs element. Define victory as survival and just try to outlast. It's analogous to insurgent cellular structures, where there is zero lateral communication....where units are clueless as to even the existence of other elements and are acting solely on discretion within a defined order of battle. That's a perfectly reasonable survival strategy. But it's a terrible way to fight a war. There is no maneuver. No mass. No concentration. No ability to mount an effective counterattack in any meaningful way. Just hunker down and take it while leaving your enemy free to operate t discretion.

One reason for Trump doing all the public yammering? To stoke exactly such divisions cited above. To incite remaining religious structures to attack remaining secular structures in order to prevent latter from cutting a peace deal. Problem is, the cellular structure the regime has adopted as a survival strategy leaves itself vulnerable to exactly what we are doing - destabilizing the regime by stoking fears of one portion of the regime seeking a separate peace at the expense of the other.

One thing for sure among all scenarios? One where Iran wins. They are in a world of hurt. Their best case outcome is a reset to 1980. You are digging yourself an awfully deep hole here........

---

If we don't find the off ramp within a reasonably short time frame, it will be a significant geopolitical shift, but not what you think. Hamas has not been defeated in Gaza. Sure, they're militarily and infrastructurally decimated. They've lost dozens if not hundreds of their leaders, and at least half of the land area they previously controlled. But they remain in power.

We're going after Iran. They are defined by mosaic defense. It's not only how they control such a large nation, the IRGC operates normally in dispersed command and control. Decapitation doesn't stop them, and they were built to operate without real time battle orders. It not only makes them resilient, it increases the danger as some regional actors may escalate in ways others may not agree with. It's likely the source of some of the regional potshots they've taken on neighbors.

You of all people should know that the exact tactics you discuss above are why great powers struggle long term and accumulate great cost in both money and blood in asymmetric warfare. We were never not going to be able to crush them on a comparative basis. But the calculus is not 1 to 1. It's more like 1000 to 1 or greater in many scenarios. Iran doesn't need a Navy. They only need to project a threat on traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. That cost to the world is greater than the entire military and industrial value of Iran.

At this point I'm not even sure if actual discussions are happening, and that's not a good thing. And Trump can do all the public "yammering" he wants. Other than official channels, communications in Iran are mostly a black hole, and what does happen is still state directed.

We've achieved a decimation of their nuclear capability and greatly weakened their military apparatus. If we move to regime change and rooting out the RGC, it's going to be a slog.

Keep going Donnie! Blow more **** up over there.

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

I have no doubt the US will win this fight

---

What constitutes "winning" for us?

---

Destruction of Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons.

Regime change

---

Ok.

If these are our goals, how do we accomplish them?

Is degradation of their ability to produce nuclear weapons enough, or do we need to land a ground force and seize all the enriched uranium they possess?

How do you accomplish regime change from the air?

If we land a ground force on Kharg Island, how long would we have to hold it to accomplish regime change via economic pressure? Will we be able to do this before Iranian strikes cause enough economic damage to our economy to cause regime change here?

That will not be enough to reopen the Straits of Hormuz as commercial shipping transiting the 10,000 foot wide shipping channel will still be subject to being sunk from missiles and drones launched from the mainland.

The Shahed-131 is a smaller munition with a range of 700 to 900 km, while the larger Shahed-136 has a range of at least 2,000 km. There's also a turbojet powered Shahed-236 that is a much faster and difficult to intercept. So to reopen the Straits of Hormuz we will have to land a conventional army on the Iranian mainland and control enough of it to eliminate potential launch sites for these.

Those of us who oppose the war are not "panicans". We are not unpatriotic. We are not on Iran's side. Many of us, myself included, have been in the military.

Its just that rather than blindly trusting the plan or mindlessly waving the flag we have thought through such questions and the answers to all of them are not good. I do not think this is a war that we can win anymore than we won the war in Afghanistan. Sure, we may be able to point to tactical success. But a strategic victory will remain outside our grasp.

As a reference point, this is the country we are at war with.



Also keep in mind that what you have cited as our goals in this conflict are most certainly not Israel's goals. That's why they almost immediately follow up Trump's intermittent statements about ongoing negotiations with additional unilateral strikes on Iranian infrastructure.

Read ATLBear's post above mine.