War with Iran - DEFCON 3

[Maximus]

There's a lot more here to celebrate than to denigrate, IMO. I didn't paint you as an fan of Iran.

lol I wish they cut off the head instead of just hitting the plants, maybe this can ignite protests but not unless they helped people escape that prison


I just think a competent R hawk bombs without the public will I wont I BS

[Moliere]

Wondering why we attacked Iran?

It's because Trump was watching Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall glowing praise about Israel's strikes on Iran. He saw that, thought that striking Iran resulted in great press, and wanted in on the action. Fox News was also airing guest after guest urging Trump to get more involved. So now suddenly "everyone" was urging him to get more involved.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/u...n-strikes.html

Regardless of how the decision was made, it was the correct call at the time. The NY Times trying to denigrate the good strategic call by painting it as a way for Trump to inflate his own self-interest is absurd and just reinforces that it was the right call. Sometimes a broken clock is correct. and Trump was correct this time and it was well played.

[Copelius]

lol I wish they cut off the head instead of just hitting the plants, maybe this can ignite protests but not unless they helped people escape that prison


I just think a competent R hawk bombs without the public will I wont I BS

I think the strategic goal of regime change to one amicable to the US is more likely if the snake is neutered, allowing the populace to take care of the matter. Cutting off the head may result in a hydra like situation. Now, if the populace is radicalized enough with all the sane Iranians having left . . .

[Goatnapper'96]

I think the strategic goal of regime change to one amicable to the US is more likely if the snake is neutered, allowing the populace to take care of the matter. Cutting off the head may result in a hydra like situation. Now, if the populace is radicalized enough with all the sane Iranians having left . . .

I think we need to stay out of forcing regime change via direct confrontation. We have no choice but to deal with the issues of the Middle East. For the US to enjoy its way of life we have to deal with ME issues- it just is not a negotiable reality. However, as tempting as regime change is we must not allow it to become our goal. We can help it along but unless the regime itself poses a direct threat to US way of life, such as Nazi Germany or the militaristic Japanese Empire, we cannot get caught up in making that a strategic/tactical goal. I don't believe Trump has done that yet in Iran-he could and heaven knows Israel would love for him to become obsessed with that goal, but I think I read a comment from Israel along the lines of now that the nuclear production has been set back indefinitely the IDF plans to pull back in its talons wrt to Iran. My instinct was Trump made a deal with Netynahu that the US would participate in decapitating the current nuclear program in Iran but after that Israel had to take their win and not attempt to face regime change. Certainly, I think the Iranian response to the US bombing indicates Iran is ready to de-escalate and focus on their imminent internal strife and likely movements seeking regime change. In the short term the Israeli war on Iran and its proxies looks like it went swimmingly well for Israel and the US. But history is a real long time.

[Goatnapper'96]

Regardless of how the decision was made, it was the correct call at the time. The NY Times trying to denigrate the good strategic call by painting it as a way for Trump to inflate his own self-interest is absurd and just reinforces that it was the right call. Sometimes a broken clock is correct. and Trump was correct this time and it was well played.

Any US President of my lifetime would have bombed Iran under these circumstances.

[falafel]

Any US President of my lifetime would have bombed Iran under these circumstances.

With my very limited information and lack of military training or strategic evaluation, I whole-heartedly agree!

[Northwestcoug]

Any US President of my lifetime would have bombed Iran under these circumstances.

Yes, and they've all done similarly.

But here's a question: was there ever an instance when the DNI testified under oath that a country wasn't actively developing nuclear weapons, and then the president bombed them 3 months later because he believed they were?

[Goatnapper'96]

Yes, and they've all done similarly.

But here's a question: was there ever an instance when the DNI testified under oath that a country wasn't actively developing nuclear weapons, and then the president bombed them 3 months later because he believed they were?

Probably not. Check that certainly not. Certainly, this administration is the most chaotic and doesn't value coordination.

I think US involvement to utilize our ordinance to bomb the Nuclear sites was part of an agreement between Trump and Netyanhu to end this phase of the ongoing Israeli war with others in its region. I think Bibi wanted regime change-and perhaps he will ignore Trump's desire and forge ahead with that plan regardless. But my instinct is Trump believes Israel agreed to start backing off once the US dropped MOABs on the Nuclear sites.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Probably not. Check that certainly not. Certainly, this administration is the most chaotic and doesn't value coordination.

I think US involvement to utilize our ordinance to bomb the Nuclear sites was part of an agreement between Trump and Netyanhu to end this phase of the ongoing Israeli war with others in its region. I think Bibi wanted regime change-and perhaps he will ignore Trump's desire and forge ahead with that plan regardless. But my instinct is Trump believes Israel agreed to start backing off once the US dropped MOABs on the Nuclear sites.

They weren’t MOABs! They were MOPs. Come on, man.

[Bo Diddley]

They weren’t MOABs! They were MOPs. Come on, man.

[Jeff Lebowski]

He’s a graduate of West Point, for hell’s sake. It’s embarrassing.

[myboynoah]

lol

Embedded Tweet

[Northwestcoug]

Wow, the most superior and advanced military the world has ever seen runs a successful limited bombing campaign against a vastly inferior foe, hobbled by airstrikes and sanctions, with backup from adjacent military bases, is one of the most 'successful military strikes in history'? And now he's comparing its effects to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The souls of thousands of soldiers storming a beach or fighting in the air against similarly advanced militaries cry out for recognition...

Does this guy or his supposed serious advisors ever blush at the outlandishness of his daily outbursts?

[myboynoah]

lol

Embedded Tweet

Verifies the assessment exists, somehow reasons that the assessment is an offense against the pilots, and pushes the "obliteration" narrative. Even the Israelis assess it wasn't obliteration.

Iran was smart to agree to a cease-fire. Stop the attacks, hunker down, and build a bomb as fast a possible. What are our next moves?

[USUC]

I'm not apt to trust the administration's assessment anymore than this leak. Both sides here seem to be about manipulating perception instead of finding truth. Probably best to wait before declaring whatever victory best aligns with your priors.