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.
The biggest part of them are permanently stationed there at several airbases on the Arabian Peninsula. The next largest part of that number are the seamen on the naval forces sent into the area, which are mostly located in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, so not exactly the same thing as "troops on the ground." The number of NEW ground troops sent into theater is still a 4-digit number - 1 MEU and a small portion of the 82nd Airborne.

To put this in perspective , 2,459 American lives were lost in our 20 year war with Afghanistan. Think about this.
Shocking stat: For most of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the death rate of our troops was equal or very slightly higher (3-digit number) than the peacetime death rates on our bases here at home. (exact numbers vary according to source, but not enough to affect the overall relationship).

---

By any reasonable comparison to the past, the numbers of troops involved in this operation makes it unmistakably clear that we are not going to "invade" Iran for the purpose of regime change and operation. We are 6 months and about a half-million troops short of being able to do that. Indeed, one could argue that our lack of mobilization to do so has made the diplomacy harder. Iranian leadership understands clearly that we are NOT going to invade and go house to house to ferret them out.

Until you see us offloading entire armored divisions into the Arabian Peninsula, no invasion will occur. The MEU and airborne units are only there to threaten to raid Kharg Island and Natanz & other nuclear sites.

But the neverTrumpers gonna neverTrump about neverWar and neverNation-building, no matter how disconnected from reality such narratives might be.

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keep slopping that bilge, Samistan.

You already destroyed your credibility here years ago.

---

Haters gonna hate when you're batting a thousand. I'm used to it.

---

Son, you swing three times at pitches that aren't even there. Your batting avg. since 2022 is .000 and you know it.

For a while your lies were funny, if odd. Now you're just a pathetic America-hater. Cheering for enemies of Americans is not most people's idea of the person they want to be.

---

Anyone who questions sending troops into the meat grinder is pro-mullah and hates America in your world. We get it.

---

Typical hypocrisy from Sam, who hates our troops and President so much that he channels slander and anti-American rumors like he's just quoting The View or one of Hunter's drug trips.

It's absurd that Sam has to dilute the success of AirLand doctrine, rather than admit our history has an example where whiners predicted massive US casualties which never happened (to the dismay of those haters, just as Sam and his urine-drenched cohort feel now) and which US victory radically changed the relative influence of world powers. Sam pretends the March Politburo meeting in Moskva never happened, the one where military leaders confirmed to Gorbachev that it was now impossible for the USSR to win any potential military conflict with the US.

Sad in a way, if predictable.

---

Just wanted to clue you in that Iran is not Iraq and there is a reason we've hesitated to invade them for so long.

---

In reality.....up to this point our Iranian bombing campaign has been far more effective than what was accomplished in a comparable time frame with Iraq.

Of course Israeli intelligence has a lot to do with this success.

---

The symmetrical war in Iraq was already finished in a comparable time frame. What have we accomplished this time?

---

That is absurd.

Took months just to get the armor shipped over.

---

Nice try at moving the goalposts, but this war has already started. What exactly have we accomplished in a month of bombing that's been so effective?

---

Not moving anything.

If you can't read the dispatches coming from the JCS …..then you are even more lazy than most .

You really need to get a physical.

Something just isn't right with you.

---

I can read that we've bombed this and bombed that. I'm not seeing what the mission is or how we're accomplishing it. You talk a lot of ****, but do you know the difference? I don't think you do.

---

The mission goals have been repeated constantly. As in at least 4 times a day.

So you are either a liar or suffering from acute memory loss.

Since you claim to be Catholic, ( an amusing stance in your case ) I do not wish to accuse you of a mortal sin.
Especially as the required confession would result in an essay.....boring the poor Priest to death.


So let's just go with acute memory loss.

---

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. If you listen to what they say, Trump and Hegseth contradict themselves at every turn. First the mission is regime change, then it isn't. Next it's opening the strait, then it isn't. Still no sign of how they're going to achieve whatever it is they're trying to achieve.

---

I don't know why anyone responds to that guy. Hilarious to think Trump is even capable of consistent messaging.

They told us at the beginning, there was no real goal, the Israelis invited us along for war. So they are free to make it up as they go.

I will say this, I had never considered going to war, Iran predictably closing the Strait of Hormuz, then leaving while they still have it closed and want to start taxing it.

And then declaring victory. Nuclear material still being enriched, no less. Points for losing in style i guess. I hate losing wars.

---

It's amazing how they're defining "regime change" down. Now, they're saying it means they killed their leaders. But if the same regime is in place, that's not regime change.

I agree it's disingenuous to say the goals of the war have always been clear. They have not. Trump clearly said the goal was regime change and ending their nuke program forever. Now, on top of defining "regime change" down, Rubio is saying the aims were to deplete their military, especially their missiles.

So, the end result of all this is that the world will be worse off than it was before the war.

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.

---

And notably, the Trump admin is not talking about ground troops. Their critics are.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

We get it, you hate Trump so much you are somehow convinced no one else is making plans or issuing orders. You are this board's Teheran Timmy, but give it a rest, Achmed.

---

I give up. You have no concept over whether or not we should do it with American troops

Of course your Arab friends want us to send our troops so they dont have to send theirs. We are the proxy. We are Ukraine in this model, using US military capital and personnel to do Bibi's war.

It has nothing to do with supporting the Mullahs, it has everything to do with doing it with our troops. No wars, remember?

---

There will be no war. Just a bombing campaign followed by a raid to secure the enriched uranium. Then we send the fleets home.

Was Venezuela really a war?
Didn't our action in Venezuela positively transform our geopolitical position in the Americas and abroad?
Any troops on the ground there today?
Any troops on the ground YET in Iran?
I mean for that matter, why do we not ALREADY have troops on the ground in Iran (if that was the intent)? We have bombed them to the point their ability to respond with conventional military forces is effectively zero We have total air supremacy, which means they cannot mass large forces nor move large forces & logistics to counter our operations. Would look like the "road of death" in Iraq 1.0 only in Farsi.

Quit it with the false dilemma. This operation is not Afghanistan 2.0

---

Come on, you can't compare Iran with Venezuela. Iran was no 1 week kidnapping, with a chosen leader ready to cut a deal. That is more of a false dilemma than Afghanistan. I used Afghanistan because we actually left. We are still in Iraq. But, I do agree that Iraq is a closer model. Is Iraq 2003 a better alternative, we are still there...

No, I didn't say we invaded yet. I agree, if we had what we have in Iraq 1 (which we don't), it would be the "road of death 2".

We are on our own. It would be closer to Iraq 2003 where we had to by-pass the Cities and leave them in our rear to get to Bagdhad, Tehran in this case. You still think what we had in 2003, which had trouble in those cities, could take Iran without a problem? We can't take the Straits now and the Army/Security forces are still in place.

No Fly, I am all for. You keep arguing military. We all agree the US military will win. The Kharg Island and military issue is more about casualties than outcome. The issue is and has always been with Iran, what do you do after? We are at that point. You can call me a REMF or TDSer, but the question remains what about after? It is up to the Iranian people is not an answer and I hope Trump talk is rhetoric, not serious (who knows). We do not have a George Marshall in this group to come up with a workable 4 year plan or an Eisenhower that is skilled at working with other Nations. This group is pretty bombastic.

For those who voted for Mar Lago boy in2024, thinking HE would be the one to lower the price of eggs and bacon (big whoop), and keep us out of endless wars, and, most importantly keep a woman of color out of the WH - how's that going for you, eh? Mar Lago boy is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a serial adulterer, a pathological liar, a confirmed sociopath, and (just for kicks) led an insurrection against the United States while president. What a guy. And if you actually voted to put this cretan back in office ... ain't you jes proud of yo self? May God have mercy on your soul if you did. Oil will be sky high for quite a while, 14 servicemen and women are dead and hundreds wounded because of his need to look tough, not to mention the cost in $$ and armaments. In so many ways he has made a mess of the US, our economy, and our reputation in the world. AND he wants his name on everything. Is this what you voted for ... if you did?

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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've decapitated their leadership. We've decimated their ground forces. We've destroyed their logistics. We've seized their cash. We've rendered their patron (Iran unable to be of any help to them at all). It is not possible to declare them the victor in this war.

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.
Misread. Mosaic defense is not a model to run a country. It's a model to survive defeat by a vastly superior power. That they are now in "mosaic mode" means they are defeated, not victorious.

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.
Only when they expose themselves to it. We did, for decades. Now, we are exposing Iran to our strengths - conventional military force......
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.
If they don't need a navy, why did they build one?
They do need a navy. Particularly now that they don't have one.

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.
When does it become "a slog"?
Did we get "regime change" in Venezuela?
The purpose of diplomacy is to persuade countries to change their policies.
The purpose of war is to force countries to change their policies, by regime change if necessary.
If we get the desired policy changes, does regime change matter?
(didn't matter in Venezuela, now, did it?)

---

Part of the issue is conflicting policy points, we are shedding allies yet expanding our footprint.
Not "shedding" allies in theater. Quite the opposite.
If our allies do not have the ability to respond effectively, are they really allies?
Sure, much of Nato is displeased with us. But when invaded, they will beg for our help. And we will come. So stop it with the nonsense that we are destroying alliances.
We are choosing to destabilize areas requiring more resources for less return.
Oh, I dunno. Destroying a nuclear program, seizing a dozen weapons worth of 60% uranium, destroying a navy, air force, and regime terror support structures is a pretty significant return. Here's your sign: Hizballah the crown jewel of Iranian proxies, has just been outlawed by the Lebanese government and is being subjected to a ground invasion by Israel.

At the same time, letting China and Russia off, at the expense of traditional allies. (such as Russian oil).
Every drop of oil China gets from Venezuela is now at market price, and every drop of oil they get from the Persian Gulf is allowed to sail past our carrier battle groups. And Russia just losts 40% of its oil export capacity to a Ukrainian strike. So who's in control of whom?

As I said, and I agree with him ATL Bear, Iran dies not have to win, they just have to not lose.
and right now, they're failing at that task.
They do nit need a Navy, they control Homuz with asymmetrical means. All they need is to keep it drawing US resources in.

Give me Mattis over Hegseth any day. This is not a winnable strategy. Hell one carrier is already out for whatever reason. (clogged toilets) Add Houthis closing Red Sea? (they'll try, and fail again). This is overreach and poor planning after the first strike. (for Iran, not us).

---

It is simply not possible to construe the current situation or any plausible outcome as a loss for us, as a degradation of our geostrategic position in theater or anywhere else in the world. We have degraded the strength of the Iranian regime to the point its survival is doubtful. This post is another example of your reflexive neverTrumpism causing you to completely misread the landscape. (cue the tape of Short-Round poking Indy in the belly with a burning torch to awaken him from the trance).

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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've decapitated their leadership. We've decimated their ground forces. We've destroyed their logistics. We've seized their cash. We've rendered their patron (Iran unable to be of any help to them at all). It is not possible to declare them the victor in this war.

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.
Misread. Mosaic defense is not a model to run a country. It's a model to survive defeat by a vastly superior power. That they are now in "mosaic mode" means they are defeated, not victorious.

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.
Only when they expose themselves to it. We did, for decades. Now, we are exposing Iran to our strengths - conventional military force......
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.
If they don't need a navy, why did they build one?
They do need a navy. Particularly now that they don't have one.

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.
When does it become "a slog"?
Did we get "regime change" in Venezuela?
The purpose of diplomacy is to persuade countries to change their policies.
The purpose of war is to force countries to change their policies, by regime change if necessary.
If we get the desired policy changes, does regime change matter?
(didn't matter in Venezuela, now, did it?)

---

Part of the issue is conflicting policy points, we are shedding allies yet expanding our footprint.
Not "shedding" allies in theater. Quite the opposite.
If our allies do not have the ability to respond effectively, are they really allies?
Sure, much of Nato is displeased with us. But when invaded, they will beg for our help. And we will come. So stop it with the nonsense that we are destroying alliances.
We are choosing to destabilize areas requiring more resources for less return.
Oh, I dunno. Destroying a nuclear program, seizing a dozen weapons worth of 60% uranium, destroying a navy, air force, and regime terror support structures is a pretty significant return. Here's your sign: Hizballah the crown jewel of Iranian proxies, has just been outlawed by the Lebanese government and is being subjected to a ground invasion by Israel.

At the same time, letting China and Russia off, at the expense of traditional allies. (such as Russian oil).
Every drop of oil China gets from Venezuela is now at market price, and every drop of oil they get from the Persian Gulf is allowed to sail past our carrier battle groups. And Russia just losts 40% of its oil export capacity to a Ukrainian strike. So who's in control of whom?

As I said, and I agree with him ATL Bear, Iran dies not have to win, they just have to not lose.
and right now, they're failing at that task.
They do nit need a Navy, they control Homuz with asymmetrical means. All they need is to keep it drawing US resources in.

Give me Mattis over Hegseth any day. This is not a winnable strategy. Hell one carrier is already out for whatever reason. (clogged toilets) Add Houthis closing Red Sea? (they'll try, and fail again). This is overreach and poor planning after the first strike. (for Iran, not us).

---

It is simply not possible to construe the current situation or any plausible outcome as a loss for us, as a degradation of our geostrategic position in theater or anywhere else in the world. We have degraded the strength of the Iranian regime to the point its survival is doubtful. This post is another example of your reflexive neverTrumpism causing you to completely misread the landscape. (cue the tape of Short-Round poking Indy in the belly with a burning torch to awaken him from the trance).

---

It has nothing to do with Trump. It is the situation, we are leaving a mess and dumping it on the rest of the world after we defanged Iran or at least made them weaker. Latest report was we only got 1/3 of their missiles and the hypersonics are still there, similar to the June raid.

You seem to be the only one saying the regime's survival is doubtful, every other source is saying they will survive with the IRGC intact. That will prevent any change. The Straits are still in Iran's hands with, let's say 700 boats left to control it. Hezbollah and the Houthi's are still in place and lobbing missiles. You are stating only 1/3 of the situation, similar to last June's obliteration that really wasn't after they did the debrief.

My comments are not based on Trump or handwringing, it is based on the reported facts on the ground. If you want to discuss this group (you brought up, not me), typical Trump great on the opening move and very poor on the follow up. We are in follow up land...

By the way, I use Reuters an AP both are pretty objective. At least as objective as it can be in today's media.

Exclusive: U.S. can only confirm about a third of Iran's missile arsenal destroyed, sources say | Reuters

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

We get it, you hate Trump so much you are somehow convinced no one else is making plans or issuing orders. You are this board's Teheran Timmy, but give it a rest, Achmed.

---

I give up. You have no concept over whether or not we should do it with American troops

Of course your Arab friends want us to send our troops so they dont have to send theirs. We are the proxy. We are Ukraine in this model, using US military capital and personnel to do Bibi's war.

It has nothing to do with supporting the Mullahs, it has everything to do with doing it with our troops. No wars, remember?

---

There will be no war. Just a bombing campaign followed by a raid to secure the enriched uranium. Then we send the fleets home.

Was Venezuela really a war?
Didn't our action in Venezuela positively transform our geopolitical position in the Americas and abroad?
Any troops on the ground there today?
Any troops on the ground YET in Iran?
I mean for that matter, why do we not ALREADY have troops on the ground in Iran (if that was the intent)? We have bombed them to the point their ability to respond with conventional military forces is effectively zero We have total air supremacy, which means they cannot mass large forces nor move large forces & logistics to counter our operations. Would look like the "road of death" in Iraq 1.0 only in Farsi.

Quit it with the false dilemma. This operation is not Afghanistan 2.0

---

Come on, you can't compare Iran with Venezuela.
Yes, we can. The usual suspects made the predictable critiques....illegal, no strategy, no planning, no possibility of improvement without invading & occupying, etc....... And we saw a completely novel operation no one predicted which resulted in de facto regime change followed by productive policy engagement from the new regime. We are watching the same thing here. Critics are making all kinds of wild-assed allegations imputing all kinds of faulty premises and false dilemmas.
Iran was no 1 week kidnapping, with a chosen leader ready to cut a deal.
Neither was Venezuela.
That is more of a false dilemma than Afghanistan. I used Afghanistan because we actually left.
The problem with Afghanistan is not that we left, it's that it took us too long to leave.
We are still in Iraq. But, I do agree that Iraq is a closer model. Is Iraq 2003 a better alternative, we are still there...

No, I didn't say we invaded yet. I agree, if we had what we have in Iraq 1 (which we don't), it would be the "road of death 2".

We are on our own. It would be closer to Iraq 2003 where we had to by-pass the Cities and leave them in our rear to get to Bagdhad, Tehran in this case. You still think what we had in 2003, which had trouble in those cities, could take Iran without a problem? We can't take the Straits now and the Army/Security forces are still in place.
"taking Iran" has never been seriously considered. We don't need to do it to achieve our objectives.

No Fly, I am all for. You keep arguing military. We all agree the US military will win. The Kharg Island and military issue is more about casualties than outcome.
We will take Kharg Island without significant casualties. The risk comes later.....Iranian missiles & Arty. But we can quickly overwhelm that. The purpose of taking Kharg rather than destroying it is to grab Iran by the nuts and force them to submit to our will - "you give us the Uranium, we give you Kharg. Or you can bomb Kharg island flat and not export any oil at all for the next 5 years. Your choice Mr. President of Iran of the day."
The issue is and has always been with Iran, what do you do after? We are at that point. You can call me a REMF or TDSer, but the question remains what about after? It is up to the Iranian people is not an answer and I hope Trump talk is rhetoric, not serious (who knows). We do not have a George Marshall in this group to come up with a workable 4 year plan or an Eisenhower that is skilled at working with other Nations. This group is pretty bombastic.
That kind of thinking is what got us a 20yr nation-building program in Afghanistan. We should not give a rats-ass about how those places choose to govern themselves. We should only expect them to keep their BS inside their own borders. And if they are unable or unwilling to do that, we will blow their playhouse to kingdom come and let some other tinpot ruler set up a new business model

---

Trump has restored sanity to diplomacy and use of force. We don't have to turn every nation in the world into a wester secular democracy. We only need them to respect us and our interests. Only Pavlovian policy can do that - "look, buddy, 'effing with us is a very bad business model. If you cross us, we will destroy your business model and let the next guy in line build a new business model. We will rinse & repeat until we find someone smart enough to not provoke us. Eventually, we will get there. So don't make us come kick your ass. We got more leg than you got ass."

That's the way the world has worked for several millennia. Finally, we are remembering the lessons of history.

🚨 JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon just dropped an UNEXPECTED take on Iran.

“It’s much more important that this be successfully completed, than what the market does.”

Dimon says the markets are unpredictable right now, but regardless, EVERYONE should be hoping for Trump to succeed in… pic.twitter.com/lRjl7s4UfW

— Overton (@overton_news) March 31, 2026

C. Jordan said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keep slopping that bilge, Samistan.

You already destroyed your credibility here years ago.

---

Haters gonna hate when you're batting a thousand. I'm used to it.

---

Son, you swing three times at pitches that aren't even there. Your batting avg. since 2022 is .000 and you know it.

For a while your lies were funny, if odd. Now you're just a pathetic America-hater. Cheering for enemies of Americans is not most people's idea of the person they want to be.

---

Anyone who questions sending troops into the meat grinder is pro-mullah and hates America in your world. We get it.

---

Typical hypocrisy from Sam, who hates our troops and President so much that he channels slander and anti-American rumors like he's just quoting The View or one of Hunter's drug trips.

It's absurd that Sam has to dilute the success of AirLand doctrine, rather than admit our history has an example where whiners predicted massive US casualties which never happened (to the dismay of those haters, just as Sam and his urine-drenched cohort feel now) and which US victory radically changed the relative influence of world powers. Sam pretends the March Politburo meeting in Moskva never happened, the one where military leaders confirmed to Gorbachev that it was now impossible for the USSR to win any potential military conflict with the US.

Sad in a way, if predictable.

---

Just wanted to clue you in that Iran is not Iraq and there is a reason we've hesitated to invade them for so long.

---

In reality.....up to this point our Iranian bombing campaign has been far more effective than what was accomplished in a comparable time frame with Iraq.

Of course Israeli intelligence has a lot to do with this success.

---

The symmetrical war in Iraq was already finished in a comparable time frame. What have we accomplished this time?

---

That is absurd.

Took months just to get the armor shipped over.

---

Nice try at moving the goalposts, but this war has already started. What exactly have we accomplished in a month of bombing that's been so effective?

---

Not moving anything.

If you can't read the dispatches coming from the JCS …..then you are even more lazy than most .

You really need to get a physical.

Something just isn't right with you.

---

I can read that we've bombed this and bombed that. I'm not seeing what the mission is or how we're accomplishing it. You talk a lot of ****, but do you know the difference? I don't think you do.

---

The mission goals have been repeated constantly. As in at least 4 times a day.

So you are either a liar or suffering from acute memory loss.

Since you claim to be Catholic, ( an amusing stance in your case ) I do not wish to accuse you of a mortal sin.
Especially as the required confession would result in an essay.....boring the poor Priest to death.


So let's just go with acute memory loss.

---

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. If you listen to what they say, Trump and Hegseth contradict themselves at every turn. First the mission is regime change, then it isn't. Next it's opening the strait, then it isn't. Still no sign of how they're going to achieve whatever it is they're trying to achieve.

---

I don't know why anyone responds to that guy. Hilarious to think Trump is even capable of consistent messaging.

They told us at the beginning, there was no real goal, the Israelis invited us along for war. So they are free to make it up as they go.

I will say this, I had never considered going to war, Iran predictably closing the Strait of Hormuz, then leaving while they still have it closed and want to start taxing it.

And then declaring victory. Nuclear material still being enriched, no less. Points for losing in style i guess. I hate losing wars.

---

It's amazing how they're defining "regime change" down. Now, they're saying it means they killed their leaders. But if the same regime is in place, that's not regime change.

I agree it's disingenuous to say the goals of the war have always been clear. They have not. Trump clearly said the goal was regime change and ending their nuke program forever. Now, on top of defining "regime change" down, Rubio is saying the aims were to deplete their military, especially their missiles.

So, the end result of all this is that the world will be worse off than it was before the war.

---

With the caveat that it is hard to keep track of everything Trump says, he very specifically said at the start that the goal was NOT regime change. I happen to disagree with him. I think if you are going to strike them at this level, you need to remove the regime.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

We get it, you hate Trump so much you are somehow convinced no one else is making plans or issuing orders. You are this board's Teheran Timmy, but give it a rest, Achmed.

---

I give up. You have no concept over whether or not we should do it with American troops

Of course your Arab friends want us to send our troops so they dont have to send theirs. We are the proxy. We are Ukraine in this model, using US military capital and personnel to do Bibi's war.

It has nothing to do with supporting the Mullahs, it has everything to do with doing it with our troops. No wars, remember?

---

There will be no war. Just a bombing campaign followed by a raid to secure the enriched uranium. Then we send the fleets home.

Was Venezuela really a war?
Didn't our action in Venezuela positively transform our geopolitical position in the Americas and abroad?
Any troops on the ground there today?
Any troops on the ground YET in Iran?
I mean for that matter, why do we not ALREADY have troops on the ground in Iran (if that was the intent)? We have bombed them to the point their ability to respond with conventional military forces is effectively zero We have total air supremacy, which means they cannot mass large forces nor move large forces & logistics to counter our operations. Would look like the "road of death" in Iraq 1.0 only in Farsi.

Quit it with the false dilemma. This operation is not Afghanistan 2.0

---

It would be closer to Iraq 2003 where we had to by-pass the Cities and leave them in our rear to get to Bagdhad, Tehran in this case. You still think what we had in 2003, which had trouble in those cities, could take Iran without a problem?

---

I understand what you are saying

But for the record…the USA could level those cities and kill every single living thing inside them if we wanted

All these hypotheticals always rely on one issue…assuming from the get go that the USA always plays by self appointed rules that hinder its power. And that it does not unleash its God like military power on the 3rd world enemy and just kill them all

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

We get it, you hate Trump so much you are somehow convinced no one else is making plans or issuing orders. You are this board's Teheran Timmy, but give it a rest, Achmed.

---

I give up. You have no concept over whether or not we should do it with American troops

Of course your Arab friends want us to send our troops so they dont have to send theirs. We are the proxy. We are Ukraine in this model, using US military capital and personnel to do Bibi's war.

It has nothing to do with supporting the Mullahs, it has everything to do with doing it with our troops. No wars, remember?

---

There will be no war. Just a bombing campaign followed by a raid to secure the enriched uranium. Then we send the fleets home.

Was Venezuela really a war?
Didn't our action in Venezuela positively transform our geopolitical position in the Americas and abroad?
Any troops on the ground there today?
Any troops on the ground YET in Iran?
I mean for that matter, why do we not ALREADY have troops on the ground in Iran (if that was the intent)? We have bombed them to the point their ability to respond with conventional military forces is effectively zero We have total air supremacy, which means they cannot mass large forces nor move large forces & logistics to counter our operations. Would look like the "road of death" in Iraq 1.0 only in Farsi.

Quit it with the false dilemma. This operation is not Afghanistan 2.0

---

It would be closer to Iraq 2003 where we had to by-pass the Cities and leave them in our rear to get to Bagdhad, Tehran in this case. You still think what we had in 2003, which had trouble in those cities, could take Iran without a problem?

---

I understand what you are saying

But for the record…the USA could level those cities and kill every single living thing inside them if we wanted

All these hypotheticals always rely on one issue…assuming from the get go that the USA always plays by self appointed rules that hinder its power. And that it does not unleash its God like military power on the 3rd world enemy and just kill them all

---

I agree if it were simple as just destroying things it would be a very straight forward equation. Earlier in this thread I agreed, no one is arguing the military win capability, it is the desire to take on the casualties and to stay after to rebuild or what is next? Most people forget, the original Marshall Plan was only 4 years for Europe, we want to invade and stay even just 4 years?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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've decapitated their leadership. We've decimated their ground forces. We've destroyed their logistics. We've seized their cash. We've rendered their patron (Iran unable to be of any help to them at all). It is not possible to declare them the victor in this war.

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.
Misread. Mosaic defense is not a model to run a country. It's a model to survive defeat by a vastly superior power. That they are now in "mosaic mode" means they are defeated, not victorious.

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.
Only when they expose themselves to it. We did, for decades. Now, we are exposing Iran to our strengths - conventional military force......
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.
If they don't need a navy, why did they build one?
They do need a navy. Particularly now that they don't have one.

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.
When does it become "a slog"?
Did we get "regime change" in Venezuela?
The purpose of diplomacy is to persuade countries to change their policies.
The purpose of war is to force countries to change their policies, by regime change if necessary.
If we get the desired policy changes, does regime change matter?
(didn't matter in Venezuela, now, did it?)

---

Part of the issue is conflicting policy points, we are shedding allies yet expanding our footprint.
Not "shedding" allies in theater. Quite the opposite.
If our allies do not have the ability to respond effectively, are they really allies?
Sure, much of Nato is displeased with us. But when invaded, they will beg for our help. And we will come. So stop it with the nonsense that we are destroying alliances.
We are choosing to destabilize areas requiring more resources for less return.
Oh, I dunno. Destroying a nuclear program, seizing a dozen weapons worth of 60% uranium, destroying a navy, air force, and regime terror support structures is a pretty significant return. Here's your sign: Hizballah the crown jewel of Iranian proxies, has just been outlawed by the Lebanese government and is being subjected to a ground invasion by Israel.

At the same time, letting China and Russia off, at the expense of traditional allies. (such as Russian oil).
Every drop of oil China gets from Venezuela is now at market price, and every drop of oil they get from the Persian Gulf is allowed to sail past our carrier battle groups. And Russia just losts 40% of its oil export capacity to a Ukrainian strike. So who's in control of whom?

As I said, and I agree with him ATL Bear, Iran dies not have to win, they just have to not lose.
and right now, they're failing at that task.
They do nit need a Navy, they control Homuz with asymmetrical means. All they need is to keep it drawing US resources in.

Give me Mattis over Hegseth any day. This is not a winnable strategy. Hell one carrier is already out for whatever reason. (clogged toilets) Add Houthis closing Red Sea? (they'll try, and fail again). This is overreach and poor planning after the first strike. (for Iran, not us).

---

It is simply not possible to construe the current situation or any plausible outcome as a loss for us, as a degradation of our geostrategic position in theater or anywhere else in the world. We have degraded the strength of the Iranian regime to the point its survival is doubtful. This post is another example of your reflexive neverTrumpism causing you to completely misread the landscape. (cue the tape of Short-Round poking Indy in the belly with a burning torch to awaken him from the trance).

---

By the way, I use Reuters an AP both are pretty objective. At least as objective as it can be in today's media.

Exclusive: U.S. can only confirm about a third of Iran's missile arsenal destroyed, sources say | Reuters

---

If they still had lots of missiles.. they would be using them

Iranian Ballistic Missile launches:
Day 1 — 350
Day 2 — 175
Day 3 — 120
Day 4 — 50
Day 5 — 40
Day 6 — 32
Day 7 — 28
Day 8 — 15

Day 31 — 3

They’re running out of missiles and launchers.

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) April 1, 2026

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

go Donnie keep blowing chit up! Viva les Donnie! You good for biz, fat boy.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 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.

We get it, you hate Trump so much you are somehow convinced no one else is making plans or issuing orders. You are this board's Teheran Timmy, but give it a rest, Achmed.

---

I give up. You have no concept over whether or not we should do it with American troops

Of course your Arab friends want us to send our troops so they dont have to send theirs. We are the proxy. We are Ukraine in this model, using US military capital and personnel to do Bibi's war.

It has nothing to do with supporting the Mullahs, it has everything to do with doing it with our troops. No wars, remember?

---

There will be no war. Just a bombing campaign followed by a raid to secure the enriched uranium. Then we send the fleets home.

Was Venezuela really a war?
Didn't our action in Venezuela positively transform our geopolitical position in the Americas and abroad?
Any troops on the ground there today?
Any troops on the ground YET in Iran?
I mean for that matter, why do we not ALREADY have troops on the ground in Iran (if that was the intent)? We have bombed them to the point their ability to respond with conventional military forces is effectively zero We have total air supremacy, which means they cannot mass large forces nor move large forces & logistics to counter our operations. Would look like the "road of death" in Iraq 1.0 only in Farsi.

Quit it with the false dilemma. This operation is not Afghanistan 2.0

---

Come on, you can't compare Iran with Venezuela.
Yes, we can. The usual suspects made the predictable critiques....illegal, no strategy, no planning, no possibility of improvement without invading & occupying, etc....... And we saw a completely novel operation no one predicted which resulted in de facto regime change followed by productive policy engagement from the new regime. We are watching the same thing here. Critics are making all kinds of wild-assed allegations imputing all kinds of faulty premises and false dilemmas.
Iran was no 1 week kidnapping, with a chosen leader ready to cut a deal.
Neither was Venezuela.
That is more of a false dilemma than Afghanistan. I used Afghanistan because we actually left.
The problem with Afghanistan is not that we left, it's that it took us too long to leave.
We are still in Iraq. But, I do agree that Iraq is a closer model. Is Iraq 2003 a better alternative, we are still there...

No, I didn't say we invaded yet. I agree, if we had what we have in Iraq 1 (which we don't), it would be the "road of death 2".

We are on our own. It would be closer to Iraq 2003 where we had to by-pass the Cities and leave them in our rear to get to Bagdhad, Tehran in this case. You still think what we had in 2003, which had trouble in those cities, could take Iran without a problem? We can't take the Straits now and the Army/Security forces are still in place.
"taking Iran" has never been seriously considered. We don't need to do it to achieve our objectives.

No Fly, I am all for. You keep arguing military. We all agree the US military will win. The Kharg Island and military issue is more about casualties than outcome.
We will take Kharg Island without significant casualties. The risk comes later.....Iranian missiles & Arty. But we can quickly overwhelm that. The purpose of taking Kharg rather than destroying it is to grab Iran by the nuts and force them to submit to our will - "you give us the Uranium, we give you Kharg. Or you can bomb Kharg island flat and not export any oil at all for the next 5 years. Your choice Mr. President of Iran of the day."
The issue is and has always been with Iran, what do you do after? We are at that point. You can call me a REMF or TDSer, but the question remains what about after? It is up to the Iranian people is not an answer and I hope Trump talk is rhetoric, not serious (who knows). We do not have a George Marshall in this group to come up with a workable 4 year plan or an Eisenhower that is skilled at working with other Nations. This group is pretty bombastic.
That kind of thinking is what got us a 20yr nation-building program in Afghanistan. We should not give a rats-ass about how those places choose to govern themselves. We should only expect them to keep their BS inside their own borders. And if they are unable or unwilling to do that, we will blow their playhouse to kingdom come and let some other tinpot ruler set up a new business model

---

Trump has restored sanity to diplomacy and use of force. We don't have to turn every nation in the world into a wester secular democracy. We only need them to respect us and our interests. Only Pavlovian policy can do that - "look, buddy, 'effing with us is a very bad business model. If you cross us, we will destroy your business model and let the next guy in line build a new business model. We will rinse & repeat until we find someone smart enough to not provoke us. Eventually, we will get there. So don't make us come kick your ass. We got more leg than you got ass."

That's the way the world has worked for several millennia. Finally, we are remembering the lessons of history.

---

Viva les MAGGOTS, Viva le Whiteyrock! viva les Donnie ! you may the last Maggot imbecile left up in here. Little Johnny, Old 83 ain't even true believers!

NOW - Starmer says, "It is now clear that the impact of this war will affect the future of our country," and that military planners will meet to discuss how to make Hormuz Strait accessible and safe after the war, "I do have to level with people on this. This will not be easy." pic.twitter.com/KkhOWTGQQf

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 1, 2026

pic.twitter.com/LpFo5PmJXS

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 1, 2026

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

---

I guess they are holding the missiles back in all their advanced super secret bases….just waiting for America & Israel to kill more of their leaders before they unleash their awesome Persian tech fury on the big satan crusaders and their little satan Jew dogs

"Just trust me bro. Just 1,000 more of our leaders dead bro and we take it to these Americans"

HILARIOUS: Reporter: “Iranian government threatened a bunch of U.S. companies in the region today.”

President Trump: “With what? What did they threaten them with? BB guns or? They don't have much left to threaten.”

Reporter: “My question for you is—”

President Trump: “You… pic.twitter.com/zFG6L5rjJ6

— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) March 31, 2026

Exclusive: The United Arab Emirates wants to force the Strait of Hormuz open and is ready to join the fight https://t.co/80M2UI8Bq5

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 1, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

---

I guess they are holding the missiles back in all their advanced super secret bases….just waiting for America & Israel to kill more of their leaders before they unleash their awesome Persian tech fury on the big satan crusaders and their little satan Jew dogs

"Just trust me bro. Just 1,000 more of our leaders dead bro and we take it to these Americans"

---

Your guy is cherry-picking the data. Iran has consistently averaged around 30 strikes per day since the early days of the war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

---

I guess they are holding the missiles back in all their advanced super secret bases….just waiting for America & Israel to kill more of their leaders before they unleash their awesome Persian tech fury on the big satan crusaders and their little satan Jew dogs

"Just trust me bro. Just 1,000 more of our leaders dead bro and we take it to these Americans"

---

Your guy is cherry-picking the data. Iran has consistently averaged around 30 strikes per day since the early days of the war.

---

Talk about cherry picking....


[Iran is averaging approximately 24 retaliatory strike events daily across the Middle East. This frequency includes attacks launched from the air and ground affecting locations in at least eight different countries.

While the current pace is steady, it represents a significant decrease -roughly 90%- from the opening days of the conflict

Targets in Israel: Approximately 10 missiles daily. This is down from roughly 90-100 projectiles per day during the first 48 hours of the war.]


https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-27-2026/#:~:text=The%20current%20average%20of%2010,Iranian%20missile%20crews.%5B15%5D

idk why you even argue with that bum

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

---

I guess they are holding the missiles back in all their advanced super secret bases….just waiting for America & Israel to kill more of their leaders before they unleash their awesome Persian tech fury on the big satan crusaders and their little satan Jew dogs

"Just trust me bro. Just 1,000 more of our leaders dead bro and we take it to these Americans"

---

Your guy is cherry-picking the data. Iran has consistently averaged around 30 strikes per day since the early days of the war.

---

Talk about cherry picking....


[Iran is averaging approximately 24 retaliatory strike events daily across the Middle East. This frequency includes attacks launched from the air and ground affecting locations in at least eight different countries.

While the current pace is steady, it represents a significant decrease -roughly 90%- from the opening days of the conflict

Targets in Israel: Approximately 10 missiles daily. This is down from roughly 90-100 projectiles per day during the first 48 hours of the war.]


https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-27-2026/#:~:text=The%20current%20average%20of%2010,Iranian%20missile%20crews.%5B15%5D

---

I showed you all the data. Now you're getting to the question of interpretation. If your interpretation were correct, you should expect to see a steady diminution, not a sudden drop followed by a stable rate of attacks. What you're seeing instead is an initial surge followed by deliberate pacing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Keep slopping that bilge, Samistan.

You already destroyed your credibility here years ago.

---

Haters gonna hate when you're batting a thousand. I'm used to it.

---

Son, you swing three times at pitches that aren't even there. Your batting avg. since 2022 is .000 and you know it.

For a while your lies were funny, if odd. Now you're just a pathetic America-hater. Cheering for enemies of Americans is not most people's idea of the person they want to be.

---

Anyone who questions sending troops into the meat grinder is pro-mullah and hates America in your world. We get it.

---

Typical hypocrisy from Sam, who hates our troops and President so much that he channels slander and anti-American rumors like he's just quoting The View or one of Hunter's drug trips.

It's absurd that Sam has to dilute the success of AirLand doctrine, rather than admit our history has an example where whiners predicted massive US casualties which never happened (to the dismay of those haters, just as Sam and his urine-drenched cohort feel now) and which US victory radically changed the relative influence of world powers. Sam pretends the March Politburo meeting in Moskva never happened, the one where military leaders confirmed to Gorbachev that it was now impossible for the USSR to win any potential military conflict with the US.

Sad in a way, if predictable.

---

Just wanted to clue you in that Iran is not Iraq and there is a reason we've hesitated to invade them for so long.

---

In reality.....up to this point our Iranian bombing campaign has been far more effective than what was accomplished in a comparable time frame with Iraq.

Of course Israeli intelligence has a lot to do with this success.

---

The symmetrical war in Iraq was already finished in a comparable time frame. What have we accomplished this time?

---

That is absurd.

Took months just to get the armor shipped over.

---

Nice try at moving the goalposts, but this war has already started. What exactly have we accomplished in a month of bombing that's been so effective?

---

Not moving anything.

If you can't read the dispatches coming from the JCS …..then you are even more lazy than most .

You really need to get a physical.

Something just isn't right with you.

---

I can read that we've bombed this and bombed that. I'm not seeing what the mission is or how we're accomplishing it. You talk a lot of ****, but do you know the difference? I don't think you do.

---

The mission goals have been repeated constantly. As in at least 4 times a day.

So you are either a liar or suffering from acute memory loss.

Since you claim to be Catholic, ( an amusing stance in your case ) I do not wish to accuse you of a mortal sin.
Especially as the required confession would result in an essay.....boring the poor Priest to death.


So let's just go with acute memory loss.

---

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. If you listen to what they say, Trump and Hegseth contradict themselves at every turn. First the mission is regime change, then it isn't. Next it's opening the strait, then it isn't. Still no sign of how they're going to achieve whatever it is they're trying to achieve.

---

Yeah poor fella... actually do know what I am talking about. Rubio repeats the goals every day. You are just not in a good place.

---

Rubio? Good grief...that explains a lot.

---

It is becoming apparent that you currently retain little of any explanation.

Even from the Secretary of State.

---

I saw about a one-minute clip of Rubio yesterday, and literally every sentence from his mouth was a demonstrable lie.

---

Rubbish

He is a habitual liar

See? Even DJ agrees with me.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

---

I guess they are holding the missiles back in all their advanced super secret bases….just waiting for America & Israel to kill more of their leaders before they unleash their awesome Persian tech fury on the big satan crusaders and their little satan Jew dogs

"Just trust me bro. Just 1,000 more of our leaders dead bro and we take it to these Americans"

---

Your guy is cherry-picking the data. Iran has consistently averaged around 30 strikes per day since the early days of the war.

---

Talk about cherry picking....


[Iran is averaging approximately 24 retaliatory strike events daily across the Middle East. This frequency includes attacks launched from the air and ground affecting locations in at least eight different countries.

While the current pace is steady, it represents a significant decrease -roughly 90%- from the opening days of the conflict

Targets in Israel: Approximately 10 missiles daily. This is down from roughly 90-100 projectiles per day during the first 48 hours of the war.]


https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-27-2026/#:~:text=The%20current%20average%20of%2010,Iranian%20missile%20crews.%5B15%5D

---

Did you look at his graph? It shows exactly what he said it shows.

BREAKING: Iranian officials say their President Pezeshkian will be releasing an "important letter" to the American people in "a few hours."

This is set to be released just hours before President Trump's 9 PM ET address to the nation.

We will be covering it real-time.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 1, 2026

That is a big ass explosion

WATCH: Aftermath of U.S. or Israeli strikes on another artillery ammunition depot near Isfahan, Iran.

The area reportedly hosts massive artillery stockpiles, as two Iranian Army ground artillery groups are based there. pic.twitter.com/hePXApwKhp

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 1, 2026

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

There is no way. Sam Lousery said we underestimated Iran's missile program

---

I guess they are holding the missiles back in all their advanced super secret bases….just waiting for America & Israel to kill more of their leaders before they unleash their awesome Persian tech fury on the big satan crusaders and their little satan Jew dogs

"Just trust me bro. Just 1,000 more of our leaders dead bro and we take it to these Americans"

---

Your guy is cherry-picking the data. Iran has consistently averaged around 30 strikes per day since the early days of the war.

---

Talk about cherry picking....


[Iran is averaging approximately 24 retaliatory strike events daily across the Middle East. This frequency includes attacks launched from the air and ground affecting locations in at least eight different countries.

While the current pace is steady, it represents a significant decrease -roughly 90%- from the opening days of the conflict

Targets in Israel: Approximately 10 missiles daily. This is down from roughly 90-100 projectiles per day during the first 48 hours of the war.]


https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-27-2026/#:~:text=The%20current%20average%20of%2010,Iranian%20missile%20crews.%5B15%5D

---

Did you look at his graph? It shows exactly what he said it shows.

---

90% drop in attacks and the its now well under 40....only 24 a day

That does not seem like great news for Iran

BREAKING: Politico reports that Trump will use his primetime speech to say that the war is 'winding down' and US objectives have been met, while saying that allies are responsible for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) April 1, 2026

Central Israel hit by one of Iran's largest missile barrages in weeks

One of Iran's largest missile barrages in weeks injured at least 14 people and caused damage across several Israeli cities. The attack came just before the major Jewish holiday of Passover.

Published On 1 Apr 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/4/1/central-israel-hit-by-one-of-irans-largest-missile-barrages-in-weeks

BREAKING: Iran's President Pezeshkian has officially released an "open letter" to the American people.

The letter states:

1. Iran harbors "no enmity" toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries

2. Recent US actions are "aggression"…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 1, 2026