Iran Capitulating

[Waterboy]

I'm not really sure what other option they have.  Let's hope Trump is playing this as well as it appears he has to date.  The surrender must be unconditional and complete.  There cannot be any light and all nuclear energy must be eliminated from Iran.  It's not a crazy statement to think they may just have enough oil to meet their own needs without nuclear.   I would prefer we don't need to go in, but I would be adamant that we know with certainty these bad people have no means to build a bomb ever.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06...ands-oman/

[purplefaithful]

And this has lead to the predictable schism across Maga...One side tends to be more isolationist (er America 1st) and the other quite hawkish with issues like Iran.

Much as I am pro Israel, I dislike everything/anything to do with Netanyahu. But I do agree with him that we need to do whats necessary to keep Iran from ever having nuclear weapons capabilities.

Might mean B2's with heavy bombs over Fordow, or more. I think they can get the job done w/out troops on the ground.

This is like cancer though - the reoccurrence risk can be high. You will never be able to trust this regime.

I do hope this tit/tat missile lobs ends soon. Too much infrastructure and civilian casualties!

[Waterboy]

And this has lead to the predictable schism across Maga...One side tends to be more isolationist (er America 1st) and the other quite hawkish with issues like Iran.

Much as I am pro Israel, I dislike everything/anything to do with Netanyahu. But I do agree with him that we need to do whats necessary to keep Iran from ever having nuclear weapons capabilities.

Might mean B2's with heavy bombs over Fordow, or more. I think they can get the job done w/out troops on the ground.

This is like cancer though - the reoccurrence risk can be high. You will never be able to trust this regime.

I do hope this tit/tat missile lobs ends soon. Too much infrastructure and civilian casualties!

I think we're pretty aligned.  I also think Trump leans more towards a peaceful solution than the Neo-Cons.  At the same time, he also wants the problem solved l-t, so I don't think you'll see him capitulate to anything less than full dismantlement.  I think they can definitely keep troops from the ground.  

The thing I'm more concerned about than anything are the ramifications of the regime not surviving.  It's a great big unknown and it could absolutely make the bombings by Israel a decimal point in terms of the number of people it kills.  I would put the odds of Khamenei keeping control of iran at 25% at best at this point, but who knows.

[purplefaithful]

The power vacuum in Iraq was difficult to witness...We would want to avoid that in Iran. I'm not sure how, there is not the next Shah in waiting in the wings.

[badgervike]

The power vacuum in Iraq was difficult to witness...We would want to avoid that in Iran. I'm not sure how, there is not the next Shah in waiting in the wings.

The eldest son of the previous Shah, Reza Pahlavi, is often tapped to fill the void.  He was sworn in as the next Shah (or King) in 1980 when his father died.  He's been running a government in exile since. He's a secularist like his father. He's been living in exile in Cairo since his family was forced out of Iran.  I've watched some of his policy speeches.  A moderate and pragmatist by Iranian standards.

[Waterboy]

The eldest son of the previous Shah, Reza Pahlavi, is often tapped to fill the void.  He was sworn in as the next Shah (or King) in 1980 when his father died.  He's been running a government in exile since.  He's a secularist like his father.  He's been living in exile in Cairo since his family was forced out of Iran.  I've watched some of his policy speeches.  A moderate and pragmatist by Iranian standards.

That would be a great result for us, but we need to remember that the Shah was run out of town prior to the new regime.  That was nearly a half century ago, but there's a lot of different segments within that population that aren't aligned to say the least.

Edit:  Badger is right that the Shah died and then was replaced.  I kind of leaped by that truth, but I stand by my last sentence if not fully by the first.   I stand double corrected, the Shah was overthrown, then exhiled for about a year and then died.  I was going from memory.  I knew he died right around the same time, but I was a youngster then.  lol

[badgervike]

There's a fairly fragmented opposition in Iran.  It's tough to say how it ends up.  Iran was on its way to becoming a Middle East powerhouse prior to the Ayatollah days.  The main opposition party has baggage associated with siding with the Iraqis in the Iran - Iraq war which may make them unelectable.

[Waterboy]

There's a fairly fragmented opposition in Iran.  It's tough to say how it ends up.  Iran was on its way to becoming a Middle East powerhouse prior to the Ayatollah days.  The main opposition party has baggage associated with siding with the Iraqis in the Iran - Iraq war which may make them unelectable.

I listened to a discussion on who would be in position to take over should the govt fall.  His name was brought up as a main name.  The supposed expert felt it was unlikely a military based leadership would occur because of the severe distaste amongst the population of the Iranian military. The counterpoint was that there is likely to be a vacuum because of no obvious opposition at this time and that could well lead to a minority party seizing power.  

It really is hard to project, but I think you need to stop the threat of a nuclear Iran as priority 1.  I think Trump is correct in letting it play out as long as possible without intervention and allowing a "good deal" to occur.  If they refuse to commit to the total dismantlement of their capabilities (you know they'll lie and cheat every step of the way), we limit our participation to only what's necessary to eliminate the threat of a nuclear bomb for as long as possible.  Once that mission is achieved, we let the cards fall where they may, at least militarily.  We can't be seen as determining that outcome.

[Waterboy]

I keep hearing reporting that the US would need to fly B-2's from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to carry the Bunker Buster bombs. I'm pretty sure we have B-2's located elsewhere around the globe. I'm wondering if this is purposeful disinformation which we know is going on as this progresses. I believe we're going in, but it's not going to be when Iran thinks. I think Trump in his head knows that this group will never negotiate in good faith on their nuclear program and has probably made the decision to go in absent a total surprise development.

[badgervike]

I keep hearing reporting that the US would need to fly B-2's from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to carry the Bunker Buster bombs. I'm pretty sure we have B-2's located elsewhere around the globe.  I'm wondering if this is purposeful disinformation which we know is going on as this progresses.  I believe we're going in, but it's not going to be when Iran thinks.  I think Trump in his head knows that this group will never negotiate in good faith on their nuclear program and has probably made the decision to go in absent a total surprise development.

We have them at Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean as well.