Trump Was Told Attack on Iran Wouldn't Guarantee Collapse of Regime

Quote:

---

President Trump was advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to make the government fall and could spark a wider conflict, U.S. officials said, and for now will monitor how Tehran handles protesters before deciding on the scope of a potential attack

---

There 'may be' other factors at play from what I am reading.

🚨 SHOCKING REPORT OUT OF IRAN

Iranian MP Abolghasem Jarareh and politician Meysam Nadi claim that Hassan Rouhani and former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif were arrested by Iranian authorities several days ago.

• Rouhani served as Iran’s president from 2013–2021
•… pic.twitter.com/PFSi8dsXBG

— Mossad Commentary (@MOSSADil) January 15, 2026

I don't actually always agree with Sarah, but here I vehemently do.

It’s time to close our base in Qatar once and for all and move it to UAE, we do not need to sit around waiting on the Muslim Brotherhood’s permission to use our own weapons and infrastructure. https://t.co/Av9OTSZwzj

— Sarah Adams (@sarahadams) January 15, 2026

Not sure the UAE would offer the same terms we got to build and operate the base in Qatar. It's not pocket change.

I would also think with Qatar they act one way in public regarding the US but behind the bedroom doors the lovemaking is intense.

Now… is that the best idea to be close to Qatar? I would debate that for sure. But I don't think the funds nor the need is there to move the base.

Quote:

---

For what we spend on the USN (roughly $300 billion a year) it's fairly stupefying we only have 3 CVN's available globally.

---

That's how it's always been unless you have a lot of advance notice to plan and are willing to accept the consequences after a surge. We had five carriers for the start of OIF.

Having one near Venezuela doesn't help the decision on whether to prioritize the ME or PACOM

Ok, accepting that arguendo, if only 3 of our 11 carriers can be deployed, and of those only 2 'forward deployed' with months of advanced notice, they are a lousy investment moving forward since it costs us $300 billion a year, imho.

I say that not as an attack/insult (caveat; Army guy), but just a simple statement of fact. The vast majority of that firepower could be more distributed/available via VLS etc. systems without such largess, stupid procurement decisions aside (and that ignores even our lack of investment in oilers/re-supply ships). We need firepower now and the navy needs weeks/months (because who coulda seen the Middle East as a flash point?)

The Chicom 'cargo battleship' just makes some impact in my mind, in the world of hypersonics etc. /derail.

Yes, if you need more than about a third of them you need advance notice. Some will always be in some sort of heavy maintenance/refueling where they're simply unavailable. The rest in port either recently returned from deployment and may or may not be available, are getting ready for deployment and may or may not be available, or undergoing lighter maintenance/overhaul and could be available with notice.

Also there's the airwing and ships crew to consider. They aren't fully ready to deploy at a moments notice. Each airwing undergoes months of workups with exercises ashore and then underway periods working up with the carrier and its group. Each airwing's squadrons have similar issues manning and training their aircrew, maintenance personnel etc and getting their aircraft sourced and ready to deploy. When they get home, people move on, jets go to depot maintenance, and the process starts again. That's simply the reality. With 11 carriers you can reliably have three at any given time and 5-6 with advance planning, maybe one or two more with a long term plan.

During peace time though, right?

I think the argument is if we are not at peace time what can reasonably be readied, deployed and maintained?

Could we have 8 deployed by July 2026? 6? Or just the 3?

That would be my question. And what is reasonable to expecr?

flown-the-coop said:

---

During peace time though, right?

I think the argument is if we are not at peace time what can reasonably be readied, deployed and maintained?

Could we have 8 deployed by July 2026? 6? Or just the 3?

That would be my question. And what is reasonable to expecr?

---

I think the old plan was to have the ability to surge 5-6 in the event of a dust up with Russia or China. The last time we had that many carriers available at one time was during Desert Storm and the start of OIF if I remember correctly.

flown-the-coop said:

---

During peace time though, right?

I think the argument is if we are not at peace time what can reasonably be readied, deployed and maintained?

Could we have 8 deployed by July 2026? 6? Or just the 3?

That would be my question. And what is reasonable to expecr?

---

Given the amount of information out there suggesting that 2027 may be go time for China and Taiwan, I would be surprised if we have not been working our carrier maintenance and downtime schedule towards maximizing availability in that window for years now.

I don't know the exact timeline and it would depend on carriers involved, their maintenance schedules and the health of the airwings. Peace or wartime doesn't change much except what you'll accept as far as degraded readiness deployed. Yes, with advance notice we can surge more.

Quote:

---

Given the amount of information out there suggesting that 2027 may be go time for China and Taiwan

---

As much "evidence" as when every one claimed 2021 was the year.


Its ain't happening.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Given the amount of information out there suggesting that 2027 may be go time for China and Taiwan

---

As much "evidence" as when every one claimed 2021 was the year.


Its ain't happening.

---

I am not saying it is or it isn't. Just that there is plenty out there suggesting our military might think it is enough of a possibility to be gameplanning towards maximizing readiness for it if it does. Something to be said for the fact that our administration in 2021 was considerably more friendly to China than the one expected to be in power in 2027.

Tough listen or read of the translation.

I pray for those fighting against the evil mullahs and their security forces.

A woman calls into the Persian Manoto News program, saying she is the daughter of a senior commander inside Iran.

Very disturbing conversation. pic.twitter.com/KmrPy9oLPd

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) January 15, 2026

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-sending-military-assets-middle-east-trump-weighs-iran-strike-sources-say

I'm in favor of taking some LHA hulls and converting them to VLS in the front and drone carrier in the back, with room for a helo. It would need support, but you reduce the need for crew, and we could build a couple for less than full-sized carriers. And using drones reduces the worry for the SAR capabilities.

You don't need a 40,000 ton ship with the profile and hangar/well decks for VLS and a helipad. An arleigh burke is 10,000 tons with those and goes a lot faster

True, but if you're thinking about power projection, a Burke doesn't cut it. As P.J. O'Rourke noted, modern warships don't make for good war bond art.

Some ships have to be big, like carriers and amphibs. Something with a VLS and drone capability should be small, numerous, and as cheap as possible in my opinion

Those have their place, too. But, generally speaking, for power projection you want something big, visible and functional. That's what makes the big carriers worth building. But I'm trying to think of something that is cheaper than the carrier but still looks imposing and carries a legit ton of firepower. Anyway, this is turning into a discussion for another thread.

I do not want us to deploy our military to Iran, but President Trump needs to act on his promise of "coming to their rescue," because doing nothing will make Iranians think that we are full of BS and lies.

Quote:

---

But, generally speaking, for power projection you want something big, visible and functional.

---

You want something functional. Big and visible gets it killed, you only want big if it's necessary for its function. Something functional is plenty "visible" without actually being seen.

The Wall Street Journal just reported five Iranian banks are about to collapse.

Sepah Bank is on that list.

What happens next will reshape the Middle East and almost no one understands why.

Sepah isn’t a bank. It’s the payroll processor for every Revolutionary Guard officer,… pic.twitter.com/qgmgpbUd2k

— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) January 14, 2026

Quote:

---

The Wall Street Journal just reported five Iranian banks are about to collapse.

Sepah Bank is on that list.

What happens next will reshape the Middle East and almost no one understands why.

Sepah isn't a bank. It's the payroll processor for every Revolutionary Guard officer, every Army conscript, every Basij militiaman in Iran. When Israel-linked hackers hit Sepah in June, military salaries froze overnight. ATMs went dark across Tehran. Pension checks bounced.

That was a stress test. The real thing is coming.

Here's what consensus is missing entirely.

In 2020, Iran's military merged five failing banks into Sepah. The largest banking consolidation in the country's history. They called it a rescue.

It was a time bomb.

Those five banks carried 365 trillion rials in non-performing loans. Bad debt from IRGC construction projects. Losses from sanctioned front companies. Toxic paper from military procurement gone wrong. All of it got injected directly into the institution that processes every security force paycheck in Iran.

Sepah's capital adequacy ratio today: negative 23.2 percent.

Not low. Not stressed. Mathematically insolvent. Operating only because the Central Bank pretends otherwise.

This is not a sanctions story. This is a story about bureaucrats in 2020 concentrating the entire regime's financial vulnerability into a single point of failure, then pretending they hadn't.

When Sepah cannot meet its obligations, the IRGC cannot pay its men. When the men with guns stop getting paid, they stop shooting protesters. When they stop shooting protesters, the regime falls.

The causality runs through a bank, not a protest movement.

Intelligence reports confirm Khamenei has prepared Moscow evacuation plans for roughly 20 family members and senior aides. When the Supreme Leader has packed his bags, why should a conscript die holding a checkpoint?

Three thresholds:

Rial breaches 1.8 million per dollar.

System-wide banking CAR drops below negative 25 percent.

First confirmed IRGC payroll failure exceeding 72 hours.

When all three cross, historical median to resolution is 45 days.

Watch the plumbing. Not the protests.

open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…

---

Definitely one of the things that the regime can't stop is that financial collapse. More good news: Rats fleeing a sinking ship:

Quote:

---

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced sweeping new sanctions Thursday on senior Iranian officials and regime-linked financial networks, saying Tehran's ruling elite are "rats fleeing the ship" as they frantically wire tens of millions of dollars out of the country amid mounting unrest.

At the direction of President Donald Trump, Bessent said the Treasury Department is sanctioning key Iranian leaders involved in the brutal crackdown on protesters, while moving to choke off the regime's sanctions-evasion pipelines used to launder proceeds from Iranian petroleum and petrochemical sales.
In a video released Thursday on X alongside the sanctions announcement, Bessent said his message was directed to Iran's leadership "on behalf of the people of Iran, who cannot speak for themselves," before laying out how the administration anticipated and accelerated the regime's collapse.

---

"A Line in the Sand" is a book about how the Brits/French screwed up the Middle East long term when maps were drawn. Great, older book now, I enjoyed it.

A leader of the resistance, provides some insight into the uprising.

Quote:

---

As Iran's future hangs in the balance, President-elect of the National Council for Resistance of Iran, Maryam Rajavi, submitted answers exclusively to Just the News, offering insight into the nature of the uprising, the mechanics and process of replacing the regime, and the timeline for such a replacement.

How do these uprisings differ from those in 2019 and 2022?
According to Rajavi, this current uprising displays a dramatic increase in organization, focuses on dismantling centers of repression, and has expanded nationwide across Iran's largest cities and smallest towns, involving all 31 provinces and at least 207 cities.

Rajavi told Just the News, "Unlike the 2022 uprising, which was sparked by the regime's killing of Zhina (Mahsa) Amini and initially revolved around the issue of compulsory hijab, and unlike the November 2019 uprising, which was triggered by the shock of gasoline price hikes, today's uprising is not tied to a single incident or a specific, short-term demand. This movement is the product of a long accumulation of anger, political awareness, and collective will for regime change. It is therefore not a transient explosion, but a conscious movement with an explicitly overthrow-oriented character."

"In November 2019, the backbone of the uprising was formed mainly by the poor and marginalized, while students and parts of the middle class were far less present. In 2022, despite the breadth of the protests, the focus was more on a cultural and symbolic demand, and large sections of the working and productive classes did not actively participate. By contrast, the 2026 uprising is truly nationwide and social in character, encompassing workers and bazaar merchants, students and teachers, women and youth, ethnic groups and nationalities, across all 31 provinces and at least 207 cities. The participation of the bazaar on this scale is unprecedented since the anti-monarchical revolution."

Rajavi told Just the News: "In short, the current uprising is not a repetition of the past but a more advanced and mature phase of the same revolutionary process that began in 2017 and has now reached a point from which the regime cannot retreat," amid a more isolated and weakened regime facing economic collapse and eroded repressive capabilities.

---

She seems pretty credible imho. More at the links. I'm just convinced the regime is gone within 2-4 weeks.

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi live press conference from Washington DC at 1000 EST

https://www.youtube.com/user/RezaPahlavi/live

well the Mullahs have once again murdered their way to staying in power

truly the only way they will be swept out is with military force

many of the IRGC will have to die before the Islamic Republic finally collapses!

unfortunately many of the leaders of the IRGC have been found wiring tens of millions of dollars around the world.

as long as they have money- the regime will not collapse.

many of the IRGC and Basij are true fanatics.

did Nazi Germany collapse because the Reichsbank could not pay the SS?!?!

Well, speaking of "Lines in the Sand" and how the. It's seemed to forever screw the Middle East. The stateless Kurds are now getting chippy in northern Iran.

Sensing great weakness they are now on the move to carve out more territory for themselves. It appears thr Kurdish areas are mostly along the border of NW Iran, not a huge area as compared to Turkey or Iraq. But about 8 million people.
Iraq 5M
SYRIA 2M
Turkey 18M

Looks like we are moving more assets into the region…I think Trump is just pausing with guidance from his military advisors to have enough force in play to cut the head off of the regime… he has vey seldom not followed through on his word… especially now that they have threatened his life,

Trump does not forget and I think will follow through on his "help is on the way" commitment to the Iranian people

The Imperial Russian Army (WW1), Western Roman Army (5th century), heck, George Washington almost lost the continental Army/Revolution (and afterward) due to being unable to pay soldiers. MacArthur brutally killed many in the 'bonus expeditionary army' over money in 1932 (note; he was always an idiot and was reprimanded by Ike).

It has happened throughout history. The ancient tradition was to prevent it by allowing victorious soldiers to collect bootie as a reward, something essentially all of the Asian/European empires permitted including both Roman ones. There's not anything left to allow the IRGC to plunder though.

The IRGC would absolutely turn if unpaid, to say nothing of the Shia Arab mercenaries they have desperately brought over the border because the basij and IRGC themselves couldn't quell the uprising.

Separately (Alaskanag99) yes, Line in the Sand did discuss Sykes-Picot treaty of 1916 apportioning the Kurds to live within 5 separate states, functionally making them powerless. There was more discussion of this 10 years or so ago I think, or before Obama gave up on/rejected negotiating a status of forces agreement in Iraq. Today, I think the Turks, Syrian 'government,' Iraqi's alike vehemently oppose 'fixing' this historical situation, to say nothing of the mullahs. There are zero 'easy' answers to that dilemma.

Quote:

---

MacArthur brutally killed many in the 'bonus expeditionary army' over money in 1932 (note; he was always an idiot and was reprimanded by Ike).

---

Mac was a Major General and Ike was a Major assigned as his Aide de Camp in 1932 . Tell me more about this reprimand.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

MacArthur brutally killed many in the 'bonus expeditionary army' over money in 1932 (note; he was always an idiot and was reprimanded by Ike).

---

Mac was a Major General and Ike was a Major assigned as his Aide de Camp in 1932 . Tell me more about this reprimand.

---

Well, ok, I just remembered the quote, but you are right, apologies. He equivocated a bit it is fair to say.

Quote:

---

During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, served as one of MacArthur's junior aides.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#cite_note-39][39][/url] Believing it wrong for the Army's highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: "I told that dumb son-of-a-***** not to go down there," he said later. "I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#cite_note-Wukovits43-40][40][/url] Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower wrote the Army's official incident report that endorsed MacArthur's conduct.

---

I agree with the bold part. MacArthur was perhaps the most over-rated American general of all time.