Iran Capitulating

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!

purplefaithful wrote:
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.

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.

purplefaithful wrote:
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.

badgervike wrote:

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

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.

badgervike wrote:
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.

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.

Waterboy wrote:
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.

President Donald Trump will decide whether to launch a US strike on Iran within the next two weeks, he said in a statement delivered by his press secretary during a briefing Thursday.

Trump said he wanted to allow diplomatic efforts to proceed before making a final decision on US military action.

“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” said the president in his statement, which was read aloud by press secretary Karoline Leavitt from the White House briefing room.

CNN

purplefaithful wrote:
President Donald Trump will decide whether to launch a US strike on Iran within the next two weeks, he said in a statement delivered by his press secretary during a briefing Thursday.

Trump said he wanted to allow diplomatic efforts to proceed before making a final decision on US military action.

“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” said the president in his statement, which was read aloud by press secretary Karoline Leavitt from the White House briefing room.

CNN

That says a whole lot of nothing.  :)   We could be nuking them in ten mins and still be truthful with that statement.

Waterboy wrote:
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.

The US genuinely doesn't want to get involved.  They want this negotiated and to have the weapons capability dismantled.  Some bad outcomes could come with bombing for Israel.  

What if we bomb Fordow and it doesn't achieve the objective?   Part of having the MOPS is as a deterrent.  If dropping them doesn't achieve the objective...other rogue regimes will just dig deeper.  
What if the bombing is too successful...and radiation is leaked across the Middle East?  Think that's going to work out in our favor?
Bombing Fordow would give Iran an excuse for rogue attacks on the US.  Attacks on infrastructure...  Maybe a dirty bomb in a populated area?

Just my two cents.  Let the Israel AF keep dropping bombs on Fordow for a while and see how that goes.  Let Iran know that if even a cubic yard of dirt is repaired...you're just going to drop more bombs.

Iran is quickly running out of missiles to defend themselves.  

It might be time for Israel to "accidently" take down the Ayatollah with an errant missile or at least scare him into compliance.  Remember when they killed Gaddafi's son?  I have it on very good authority the Intelligence community was convinced that if they killed Gaddafi, his replacement would be as bad or worse.  On the day they killed his son in a missile strike, they had also locked in on Gaddafi himself.  Immediately after, they sent him video of himself going into a safehouse and gun footage from an Apache of them locking on the safehouse and firing a missile.  They self destructed the missile before it reached the target.  They moved to another location and killed his son.  The CIA than bundled up the gun footage of him going into a building, the Apache launching the missile, the self destruct and the subsequent gun video of the missile strik that killed his son.  They included a message that said we can always find you and will not self destruct the missile the next time.  If you remember, Gaddafi was pretty tame at the end of his reign.

badgervike wrote:

The US genuinely doesn't want to get involved.  They want this negotiated and to have the weapons capability dismantled.  Some bad outcomes could come with bombing for Israel.  

What if we bomb Fordow and it doesn't achieve the objective?   Part of having the MOPS is as a deterrent.  If dropping them doesn't achieve the objective...other rogue regimes will just dig deeper.  
What if the bombing is too successful...and radiation is leaked across the Middle East?  Think that's going to work out in our favor?
Bombing Fordow would give Iran an excuse for rogue attacks on the US.  Attacks on infrastructure...  Maybe a dirty bomb in a populated area?

Just my two cents.  Let the Israel AF keep dropping bombs on Fordow for a while and see how that goes.  Let Iran know that if even a cubic yard of dirt is repaired...you're just going to drop more bombs.

Iran is quickly running out of missiles to defend themselves.  

It might be time for Israel to "accidently" take down the Ayatollah with an errant missile or at least scare him into compliance.  Remember when they killed Gaddafi's son?  I have it on very good authority the Intelligence community was convinced that if they killed Khadafi, his replacement would be as bad or worse.  On the day they killed his son in a missile strike, they had also locked in on Gaddafi himself.  Immediately after, they sent him video of himself going into a safehouse and gun footage from an Apache of them locking on the safehouse and firing a missile.  They self destructed the missile before it reached the target.  They moved to another location and killed his son.  The CIA than bundled up the gun footage of him going into a building, the Apache launching the missile, the self destruct and the subsequent gun video of the missile strik that killed his son.  They included a message that said we can always find you and will not self destruct the missile the next time.  If you remember, Gaddafi was pretty tame at the end of his reign.

Yeah, he gave up his nukes and we then proceeded to kill him which told future dictators not to give up their nukes.  I think we need to deal with the current situation with whatever means it takes to firmly address no nukes.  We can't afford to get this close to having the no Iran nuke problem solved only to let them wiggle off the hook due to other world circumstances moving our eye off the ball.  I'm no expert, but I would prefer we focus on the one main goal and make sure it's achieved now that much of the other dirty work has been done.  I say this based off what we believe to be the conditions today.  The actuals could be far different.

Is Israel drops enough bombs on Fordow, it will be obvious via reconnaissance if they are trying to reopen it or other facilities. You can likely even get a UN supported resolution that trades a cease fire for not reopening their bombed facilities. If Iran goes back on their word, Israel can just keep dropping bombs on Nuclear facilities, key personnel, military targets and oil infrastructure until the Iranians stop trying to rebuild. Nobody will ever just take Iran's word for it again. I guess I should have said "no Republican" will ever take Iran's word for it. Obama and Biden sure thought it was possible.

You have Macron and the Europeans heading to meet with the Iranians this weekend...that seems like a great way to F@ck things up. I wonder how much Iran wants this time to pinky swear they'll only produce energy grade material.

I am 100% for a diplomatic solution with oversight.

They start f'ing around and not letting the oversight to be executed properly? Then you gotta bring a hammer again.

I think you need to take out that regime tbh.

Dropping heavy bombs on Fordow is fraught with peril as has been discussed - including bringing the war to our shores/cities/schools.

Criminal immigrants might look pretty good next to who Iran can send here (and probably are here already) to wreak havoc.

No guarantees bombing will succeed either.

purplefaithful wrote:
I am 100% for a diplomatic solution with oversight.

They start f'ing around and not letting the oversight to be executed properly? Then you gotta bring a hammer again.

I think you need to take out that regime tbh. 

Dropping heavy bombs on Fordow is fraught with peril as has been discussed - including bringing the war to our shores/cities/schools. 

Criminal immigrants might look pretty good next to who Iran can send here (and probably are here already) to wreak havoc.

No guarantees bombing will succeed either.

I’m a little more hawkish than both of you I think. Part of that is the pieces are roughly in place to greatly tone down the entire region.   The obvious work done during Trumps Mideast visit tell me he could be about to ramp up the Abram Accords to regional status. While that may leave Iran as an internal question mark, perhaps the broader region dictates the direction of the country. Bottom line, we bombed the shit out of the Houthis.  If this is as simple as a bunch of bunker busters putting them out of the nuclear business, it would be the way to minimize overall death.  I think either way the regime dies here.  I just don’t see how it survives.   This, the chaos is inevitable and I really don’t care what Macron thinks. ?

Unless the regime is beheaded, its nothing but whack-a-mole regarding nukes. Even if Fordow is taken out for now.

purplefaithful wrote:
Unless the regime is beheaded, its nothing but whack-a-mole regarding nukes.  Even if Fordow is taken out for now.

I’m migrating there more and more. He has to be taken out and when he is it opens a whole new can of worms.  But, that concern falls behind a nuclear warhead in the hands of the crazy Ayatollah.

Waterboy wrote:

I’m migrating there more and more. He has to be taken out and when he is it opens a whole new can of worms.  But, that concern falls behind a nuclear warhead in the hands of the crazy Ayatollah.

You have to let the Iraniam people uprise first.  If you take out the Ayatollah, that power void will be immediately filled by the military.  Not sure that having the Revolutionary guard in charge is better than the current situation.

badgervike wrote:

You have to let the Iraniam people uprise first.  If you take out the Ayatollah, that power void will be immediately filled by the military.  Not sure that having the Revolutionary guard in charge is better than the 

I’m not sure I totally agree or disagree with you here.  There are a lot of ways in this free for all environment that it could go, but a front-runner scenario would certainly be what you spell out.  I think anything is better than a radical Muslim cleric.  A tamed military that could take control and install order isn’t all bad.  Something resembling the Revolutionary Guard would be, but they’re so decimated that they may not look very similar post war.