Lot's of spear throwing on here about gas prices, but what would you have done differently.

Doing nothing was not an option. Rubio articulated that clearly: https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-retaliate-israeli-attack/story?id=130694505

Iran had given front-line commanders to attack US assets for Israel attacked. Israel was going to attack to keep Iran from overwhelming Iron Dome. That is just something that could not be avoided.

What would you have done differently?

There are plenty of threads on here about how this is a mess. Those don't need to be reiterated. I'm interested in what a better path forward would have been.

Should have had a strategy emphasizing regime change up front. We're never going to get the uranium out of there without a regime change. The mullahs will never agree to relinquish control over the enriched uranium

Should have had a different strategy for handling the Strait of Hormuz. Just sinking the navy hasn't worked.
Appear to have underestimated the effectiveness of drones in shutting down the straits.

Didn't have a coordinated effective message to convince the American public of the need for the attack.

Operationally everything else seemed to go better than one could hope for.

Obviously the choice you put forth is a very stark choice between an ally getting obliterated or joining that ally in a second pre-emptive attack

If our choices were truly that bad maybe we should not have let Bibi talk us into launching the first attack

Bibi has said Iran was on the verge of developing a bomb for 40 years

There seems to be no viable military solution to this problem ( I am old enough I saw War Games in a movie theater )

Which might be why The US has refrained from doing this for 20 years even though McCain & Graham have been advocating for full bombing of Iran for 15+ years

Seeing as you are looking for solutions One thing we could have done is given Ukraine unconditional support to end that war
If Russia had been forced to withdraw that oil would be available to pressure the Iranians
Currently pushing The Orcs out of the Donbas looks to be an easier solution than taking and holding Iran

Maybe if Corporal Bonespurs had served he might know that air power alone is never enough to replace a regime with one that is more to your liking

I tend to understand why every party acted in the way that they did, and that's what makes it hard. Still, at the end of the day, I have to point the finger at the terrorist-supporting regime.

Ultimately, I think you run the risk of letting a first attack happen, and it sucks to feel that way... but it is the risk we face having people and assets over there. Perhaps we should just GTFO, so we can't be forced into these no-win preemptive strike scenarios.

When the Iranian negotiators boasted that they possessed enough highly enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear bombs, it was then their fate was sealed.

I wouldn't have done it. According to the reports of the negotiations, Iran was offering meaningful concessions before we attacked them. They are now in a stronger position than they were before we attacked from a political standpoint.

Bought a bigger tub of popcorn.

Gordo14 said:

---

I wouldn't have done it. According to the reports of the negotiations, Iran was offering meaningful concessions before we attacked them. They are now in a stronger position than they were before we attacked from a political standpoint.

---

How so? They've completely alienated their neighbors. Russia and China just liked them to be a pain in our arse.

If I were president I would have purchased long term contracts to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The only thing I would have done differently is not stop bombing them until every Ayatollah leader was dead, every power plant and bridge was blown up, Kharg Island was blown up and 100 miles inland of the Straits of Hormuz were napalmed, leaving nothing for terrorists with missiles to hide behind.

Gordo14 said:

---

I wouldn't have done it. According to the reports of the negotiations, Iran was offering meaningful concessions before we attacked them. They are now in a stronger position than they were before we attacked from a political standpoint.

---

you might be correct or you might be repeating Iranian propaganda

of course both sides are spinning non stop and have little to no credibility with the other side and with large parts of their own population

AGHouston11 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Lot's of spear throwing on here about gas prices, but what would you have done differently.

Doing nothing was not an option. Rubio articulated that clearly: https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-retaliate-israeli-attack/story?id=130694505

Iran had given front-line commanders to attack US assets for Israel attacked. Israel was going to attack to keep Iran from overwhelming Iron Dome. That is just something that could not be avoided.

What would you have done differently?

There are plenty of threads on here about how this is a mess. Those don't need to be reiterated. I'm interested in what a better path forward would have been.

---

Doing nothing was not an option? You mean Trump can't tell B B what to do? You mean we send how many billions every year and the president doesn't have the ability to say no you are not doing that!

Somehow the same guy who could have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine can't stop B B who is supposed to be one of the greatest allies we have!

---

It does give credence to the talk about Israel making Trump do the heavy lifting and dirty work for them.

What would I have done differently?

Easy:

1) Had better hair.
2) Been less rich.
3) Been taller, with huge hands and feet. And glasses. NERD ALERT!!!!!1
4) Not used ketchup on my steak.
Stuff like that.

Impactful thangz!

Quote:

---

What would you have done differently on the eve of Israel attacking Iran?

---

Not attack.

If I support you with money, guns, ammo and military equipment you can bet I'm going to tell you what to do. Not being able to stop Israel is like my kids telling me what to do. Not going to fly.

doubledog said:

---

When the Iranian negotiators boasted that they possessed enough highly enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear bombs, it was then their fate was sealed.

---

This is hard to process. If I remember correctly, Sadam Hussein boasted of having WMD's. Were the Iranians trying to encourage an attack or hoping to prevent one?

I don't think most Americans have any understanding of how Irans government works so the answer is I don't know what else we could've done differently.

AGHouston11 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Lot's of spear throwing on here about gas prices, but what would you have done differently.

Doing nothing was not an option. Rubio articulated that clearly: https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-retaliate-israeli-attack/story?id=130694505

Iran had given front-line commanders to attack US assets for Israel attacked. Israel was going to attack to keep Iran from overwhelming Iron Dome. That is just something that could not be avoided.

What would you have done differently?

There are plenty of threads on here about how this is a mess. Those don't need to be reiterated. I'm interested in what a better path forward would have been.

---

Doing nothing was not an option? You mean Trump can't tell B B what to do? You mean we send how many billions every year and the president doesn't have the ability to say no you are not doing that!

Somehow the same guy who could have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine can't stop B B who is supposed to be one of the greatest allies we have!

---

Doing nothing is not a smart option if you believe one word that Rubio said.

Iran was building an arsenal of missiles that would overwhelm Iron Dome. With that arsenal, Iran could have held he ME hostage while they built a nuke. How much worse would this have been if Iran had 100,000 missiles instead of 10,000?

With that happening, Israel was not going to wait around. Once Iran gets enough missiles to overwhelm Iron Dome, they are sunk. Iran has made it really clear that they are not shy about launching missiles at Israel, or Iron Dome wouldn't even exist.

Iran was becoming an existential threat to Israel without nukes. So they decided to blow their crap up.

Would you be OK with every military base and every US embassy in the ME hit by Iran in retaliation of Israel's strike on Iran?

BetterNotBeChipKelly said:

---

Threaten to cut off Israel's funding if they don't act in tandem with the US military.

If they still do it cut off the funding and announce it to the world. Trump literally cuts federal funding to actual United States when they don't what he wants, he should do the same with "allies".

---

And just let Iran stockpile 100,000 ballistic missiles that they can launch at everyone in the ME if they are ever attacked in the future? Is that a great strategy?

Put every navy bird I could muster along the Iranian shoreline sinking anything that floated to make certain they had no way to lay mines in the SoH.

SA68AG said:

---

Should have had a strategy emphasizing regime change up front. We're never going to get the uranium out of there without a regime change. The mullahs will never agree to relinquish control over the enriched uranium

This is a good point, but it risks an Iraq type tar-baby by promising this up front.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Should have had a different strategy for handling the Strait of Hormuz. Just sinking the navy hasn't worked.
Appear to have underestimated the effectiveness of drones in shutting down the straits.

---

---

This is a good point. What would have been a better strategy?

Quote:

---

Didn't have a coordinated effective message to convince the American public of the need for the attack.

---

This is your best point. Unfortunately, however great Trump is, effective communication to the masses is not something he is good at.

Quote:

---

Operationally everything else seemed to go better than one could hope for.

---

Our military kicks F'ing a-holes at destroying other militaries. One thing is for sure, we are really, really good at that.

One thing that is overlooked here is that the Iranian strategy of stockpiling conventional (non-nuke) ballistic missiles in mass was a new strategy for them.

They had the bright idea that, if they weren't making a nuke, they could just stockpile 100,000 conventional ballistic missiles to overwhelm Iron Dome and hold the ME hostage that way and no one would respond.

That was a new strategy for them.

If that was left alone, it likely would have worked.

Allowing them to do that would have been a bad, bad, bad idea.

Israel is smart enough to know that. And, they had good enough intelligence to know that was the plan. They promised Rubio that if they attacked, the front-line IRGC would launch missiles indiscriminately in retaliation. Guess what, they were right. Trump decided to take out as many of those missiles before they were launched as he could. While the SoH thing is a bit of a mess right now, I just have a very hard time second guessing that decision to destroy the missiles that Iran did have before they were launched.

The Collective said:

---

Ultimately, I think you run the risk of letting a first attack happen, and it sucks to feel that way... but it is the risk we face having people and assets over there. Perhaps we should just GTFO, so we can't be forced into these no-win preemptive strike scenarios.

---

It's not the first attack that would have been the problem.

It is Iran having enough missiles to decimate Israel by overwhelming Iron Dome. Is that a position that you would be OK with letting Iran put themselves in?

I would've posted on F16 about it.

Gordo14 said:

---

I wouldn't have done it. According to the reports of the negotiations, Iran was offering meaningful concessions before we attacked them. They are now in a stronger position than they were before we attacked from a political standpoint.

---

I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.

Bazooka Joe said:

---

Bought a bigger tub of popcorn.

---

Best reply yet.

lb3 said:

---

If I were president I would have purchased long term contracts to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

---

Not going to argue with this one.

pfo said:

---

The only thing I would have done differently is not stop bombing them until every Ayatollah leader was dead, every power plant and bridge was blown up, Kharg Island was blown up and 100 miles inland of the Straits of Hormuz were napalmed, leaving nothing for terrorists with missiles to hide behind.

---

My hope is that this is just a quick breather to see if we have someone that can wrest power away from the really bad guys.

Maybe our government has better intelligence about some non-radicals taking over Iran, we just don't know it yet?

If not, I hope the strategy is to continue to bomb the crap out of them.

I would have told Bibi and Israel to suck bricks and to go it on their own, then try to cut all their funding we dole out to them, kick all of their assets out of our intelligence groups, followed by signing an executive order that said our MIC could no longer sell arms to them and finally made them sign the NPT and WMD Treaties that everyone else on planet earth has. Essentially treat them like all of our other allies.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

What would you have done differently on the eve of Israel attacking Iran?

---

Not attack.

---

And let Iran stockpile 100,000 missiles to overwhelm Iron Dome?