TexAgs91 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Meanwhile the "regime" has constantly said they are winning and have never agreed to anything.

---

Question for you... Why do you think Iran hadn't taken out it's leadership, airforce, navy, their access to the Strait, their ability to sell oil and their nuclear program years ago?

They could have been winning all this time!

---

You are assuming they measure success the same way as we do.

Last week was a record week in oil sales in the USA as we continue to load very large vessels of Texas crude out and ship overseas to Asia and Europe.

Hope this stays close for another few months if not 2026 thru 2028.

This is really great for the red producing states like TEXAS

Grok
Approximately 6.44 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil for the most recently reported week (ending April 24, 2026).
This is according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) weekly data released on April 29, 2026. It was a record high, up sharply from 4.798 million bpd the prior week (an increase of about 1.64 million bpd).
Key Context:
Crude oil exports (not including petroleum products): 6.438 million bpd.
Total petroleum exports (crude + products like gasoline, distillates, etc.): Hit a record 14.18 million bpd that same week.
This surge contributed to the U.S. becoming a net crude exporter on a weekly basis for the first time on record, amid global supply disruptions (e.g., related to events in the Middle East).

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Without boots on the ground, it seems highly unlikely that we had any chance at effecting a regime change.

Without it, what's the point?

---

Pushing their capabilities back a few years is no small thing.

---

No doubt. But some people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they can't see the forest for the trees.

The objective wasn't to turn Iran into a thriving democracy with troops on the ground...the objective was to weaken Iran's ability to make war on us, Israel, and our allies. No matter what happens from here on out, we've done that. We've sent them back significantly.

It's fair to question how much money we put into this, or when we say enough is enough. There's a limit on it. Trump was never going to send in ground troops.

But most of the people complaining about this issue are either trying to dunk on Trump because they want him to fail...or people who simply hate Trump and want to object to whatever he thinks is good.

Those same people were perfectly fine with the Obama/Biden strategy of giving money to Iran or leaving them alone while they targeted U.S. troops on that side of the world and gave money/resources to terrorist organizations trying to take out Israel.

They couldn't be left to continue as they were.

12thMan9 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Looks like we will have to fund a civil war in Iran. Obama did the same thing in Syria, but with nothing to show for it except 600,000 dead bodies.

---

So, is our goal to kill 600,001 Iranians to have something to show for our involvement there?

And what are the sides of the "civil war" in Iran?

---

Is 600,001 enough?

I'm more shocked by the mere fact that we gave them money. And then, we spent money blowing up the stuff that they procured or created with our money. lol, we are so dumb given our swinging strategy from election to election.

Queso1 said:

---

I wish all the world could be free, but it's really not my problem or concern and I shouldn't have to pay for it. There are plenty of unfree people around the globe, but we do not interfere in those cases.

---

I agree with you, mostly, but now that he's gone in, and said what he wants to do, to do less only benefitted the MIC and everyone (Wall Street and any shareholder, etc.).

Basically it'll be Iraq all over again but worse.

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Without boots on the ground, it seems highly unlikely that we had any chance at effecting a regime change.

Without it, what's the point?

---

Pushing their capabilities back a few years is no small thing.

---

And going into remission means nothing if the cancer comes back.

Queso1 said:

---

I wish all the world could be free, but it's really not my problem or concern and I shouldn't have to pay for it. There are plenty of unfree people around the globe, but we do not interfere in those cases.

---

That's because most of the smaller countries with unfree people don't have the capability to build nukes or have the funds to support terrorist groups that target the U.S. and our allies. Kind of a major distinction to overlook in that analogy.

The Iran action isn't about trying to free their people. Hopefully it's a positive consequence of what we're doing, but that wasn't the reason we took action. We took action to weaken their ability to make war.

Same for Venezuela. Hopefully getting rid of that thug Maduro will lead to a free country. But we took him out of power because of our oil interests and drug activity/security.

eric76 said:

---

Without boots on the ground, it seems highly unlikely that we had any chance at effecting a regime change.

Without it, what's the point?

---

Iran has flopped its regimes nearly a half dozen times in the last 100 years typically through coups and "constitutional revolutions".

There are great ideological differences within Iran over how the country should be run or governed. The minority theocrats have ruled for the past 47 years primarily relying on brut force, particularly when there is any dissent or if socioeconomic pressures require a heavier hand (usually holding a sword or gun).

Defaulting to "boots on the ground are the only way out" is to poorly understand the history of regimes in Iran / Persia and how instable existing regimes can be.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Without boots on the ground, it seems highly unlikely that we had any chance at effecting a regime change.

Without it, what's the point?

---

Pushing their capabilities back a few years is no small thing.

---

And going into remission means nothing if the cancer comes back.

---

Not true. You get extra time and extend the window for a true cure.

Quote:

---

Iran has CAN not capitulated, what is the exit strategy?

---

No one is in a position to take any action, other than fire a few some ordinance, in IRAN.

I would just blow them out of the water at this point. He's negotiating back-and-forth he'll hold firm.

Just a Trump maneuver that some people hate some people like.

What's funny is so many people making comments on it that have nothing to do with it and aren't in the know. Just let it play out.

Squadron7 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Without boots on the ground, it seems highly unlikely that we had any chance at effecting a regime change.

Without it, what's the point?

---

Pushing their capabilities back a few years is no small thing.

---

And going into remission means nothing if the cancer comes back.

---

Not true. You get extra time and extend the window for a true cure.

---

I get where you're coming from, but If I haven't heard that for so many decades I'd believe it when it comes to the ME.

Bad news: Russia and China are working hard to prop them up. Just like we're doing in Ukraine

Good news: we are draining Russian and Chinese resources faster than our own, on both fronts.

AGHouston11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Meanwhile the "regime" has constantly said they are winning and have never agreed to anything.

---

Question for you... Why do you think Iran hadn't taken out it's leadership, airforce, navy, their access to the Strait, their ability to sell oil and their nuclear program years ago?

They could have been winning all this time!

---

You are assuming they measure success the same way as we do.

---

What kind of nonsense response is that?

Keeping their leadership in tact? I guarantee you that was a priority for their leadership.

Their nuclear program? That seems to be the one non-negotiable they have. It's decimated.

Their airforce and navy would have been expensive to maintain. Why spend money on it if it's not worth it to them?

And yes, of course they want to be able to sell oil. That's how they fund their terrorism.

Bondag said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Why would anyone here have information on the administration's strategy?

---

We used to have a Secretary of Defense post on here from time to time.

---

Was he SecDef at the time, and did he discuss policy?

Gigem314 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Without boots on the ground, it seems highly unlikely that we had any chance at effecting a regime change.

Without it, what's the point?

---

Pushing their capabilities back a few years is no small thing.

---

No doubt. But some people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they can't see the forest for the trees.

The objective wasn't to turn Iran into a thriving democracy with troops on the ground...the objective was to weaken Iran's ability to make war on us, Israel, and our allies. No matter what happens from here on out, we've done that. We've sent them back significantly.

It's fair to question how much money we put into this, or when we say enough is enough. There's a limit on it. Trump was never going to send in ground troops.

But most of the people complaining about this issue are either trying to dunk on Trump because they want him to fail...or people who simply hate Trump and want to object to whatever he thinks is good.

Those same people were perfectly fine with the Obama/Biden strategy of giving money to Iran or leaving them alone while they targeted U.S. troops on that side of the world and gave money/resources to terrorist organizations trying to take out Israel.

They couldn't be left to continue as they were.

---

We accomplished setting them back a few years militarily a month or more ago. But in doing that the SOH is now compromised as a result, and Iran is lashing out at its neighbors who are telling us we need to help them because we kicked this thing off when Israel was ready to do so.

So that brings us back to the question of what is the endgame for us? We accomplished our stated initial goals, even according to Trump, already.

Now what? Stay until the SOH is open? Permanently? How do you ensure permanently given the geography?

What is our off-ramp?

They measure success in how many infidels they kill before they embrace martyrdom.

We should be happy to oblige them in their quest to reach paradise via incineration provided by non-believers.

If capitulation means death to every last jihadi, then give it to them expediently.

Logos Stick said:

---

Looks like we will have to fund a civil war in Iran. Obama did the same thing in Syria, but with nothing to show for it except 600,000 dead bodies.

---

Killing people is what we do best.

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has already repeatedly claimed complete and total military victory. So its likely he just holds line on "deal or annihilation", until a domestic force undercuts him. Then he has someone to blame for not coming thru on the MAGA dream of replacing the IRGC and liberating the Iranians. That seems the best option for America at this stage. Escalation to a US ground invasion would be bad.

---

Why would that be a "MAGA" dream? I do think us liberating the Iranian people from an oppressive, violent, terroristic regime who murders friend, foes and family with reckless abandon is consistent still with making America great again by re-establishing our presence as purveyors of freedom, but you seem to indicate its some foolish fetish to replace the Islamic regime (IGRC is just one of the groups, not the "regime" itself as you seem to confuse these things).

Can you reference the war plan / strategy that leads you to "US ground invasion" as the only path forward?

EFR said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

---

Not really. Mine uranium and get a bomb up goat hole.

flown-the-coop said:

---

MarvZindler said:

---

Trump has already repeatedly claimed complete and total military victory. So its likely he just holds line on "deal or annihilation", until a domestic force undercuts him. Then he has someone to blame for not coming thru on the MAGA dream of replacing the IRGC and liberating the Iranians. That seems the best option for America at this stage. Escalation to a US ground invasion would be bad.

---

Why would that be a "MAGA" dream? I do think us liberating the Iranian people from an oppressive, violent, terroristic regime who murders friend, foes and family with reckless abandon is consistent still with making America great again by re-establishing our presence as purveyors of freedom, but you seem to indicate its some foolish fetish to replace the Islamic regime (IGRC is just one of the groups, not the "regime" itself as you seem to confuse these things).

Can you reference the war plan / strategy that leads you to "US ground invasion" as the only path forward?

---

This was the mentality that led the US to try nation building across the globe post WWII with minimal success and a key theme of Trump 2016 campaign in getting us out of nation building. Only thing most care about is getting rid of them having a nuke.

PS. Yes I would love everyone in the world to enjoy western freedoms but it isn't realistic at this time for a number of reasons.

12thMan9 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Looks like we will have to fund a civil war in Iran. Obama did the same thing in Syria, but with nothing to show for it except 600,000 dead bodies.

---

So, is our goal to kill 600,001 Iranians to have something to show for our involvement there?

And what are the sides of the "civil war" in Iran?

---

We already have something to show for it: a decapitated Iran with no more nuclear capability.

Obama just got a bunch of people killed with his "Arab Spring" nonsense.

We set their capabilities back significantly. We are free to stop bombing when we want. I don't see the angst. This is what we should have done with Saddam.

Kansas Kid said:

---

This was the mentality that led the US to try nation building across the globe post WWII with minimal success and a key theme of Trump 2016 campaign in getting us out of nation building. Only thing most care about is getting rid of them having a nuke.

PS. Yes I would love everyone in the world to enjoy western freedoms but it isn't realistic at this time for a number of reasons.

---

The "nation building" and carving up the middle east and other remnants of the Ottoman Empire (and other empires) was happening before WWI and got going in earnest after WWI. What happened post WWII was taking those carved up areas and trying to get those countries to pick sides between US v Russia (and now one could argue US v China & Russia).

The Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapon is intertwined with the Islamic Republic regime in Iran for the past 47 years. There are two outcomes for Iran. Further spanking in perpetuity anytime the think the want to move a scintilla closer to a nuke or a new regime that does not have Death to America and a pursuit of a nuclear weapon as its core reasons for existing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Why would that be a "MAGA" dream? I do think us liberating the Iranian people from an oppressive, violent, terroristic regime who murders friend, foes and family with reckless abandon is consistent still with making America great again by re-establishing our presence as purveyors of freedom, but you seem to indicate its some foolish fetish to replace the Islamic regime (IGRC is just one of the groups, not the "regime" itself as you seem to confuse these things).

---

The term "a dream" can be used to reference something people hope for, but is unlikely.

I'm not questioning you and other Trump loyalists rationale for the dream. Its more about the cost and hurdles preventing it. Including the millions of other Americans, on both the left and right, who dont share that dream.

It is obvious to me at least that Iran is trying to get the US into a ground based war.

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Patience, Grasshoppers. The blockade is an ever tightening vice. The "exit Strategy" as it's being called here, is that at some point Iran's government (whatever and whomever that is) is gonna snap. Right now no one, except a few islamic sailors, is getting blown up. I'd say that's a good thing. Meanwhile the ratchet is inexorably turning turning turning. Why get anyone hurt when all you have to do is wait.

---

"Patience grasshopper" is the theme for Trump's 2nd term….

BboroAg said:

---

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Patience, Grasshoppers. The blockade is an ever tightening vice. The "exit Strategy" as it's being called here, is that at some point Iran's government (whatever and whomever that is) is gonna snap. Right now no one, except a few islamic sailors, is getting blown up. I'd say that's a good thing. Meanwhile the ratchet is inexorably turning turning turning. Why get anyone hurt when all you have to do is wait.

---

"Patience grasshopper" is the theme for Trump's 2nd term….

---

17 months in to a 48 month term...

flown-the-coop said:

---

BboroAg said:

---

Wearer of the Ring said:

---

Patience, Grasshoppers. The blockade is an ever tightening vice. The "exit Strategy" as it's being called here, is that at some point Iran's government (whatever and whomever that is) is gonna snap. Right now no one, except a few islamic sailors, is getting blown up. I'd say that's a good thing. Meanwhile the ratchet is inexorably turning turning turning. Why get anyone hurt when all you have to do is wait.

---

"Patience grasshopper" is the theme for Trump's 2nd term….

---

17 months in to a 48 month term...

---

A 1/3 of the way!

EFR said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

A free Iranian people and no uranium in Iran. Anything less is unacceptable.

Carry on, rant(?) over.

---

That is going to be hard as they mine it there.

---

And? Id like to think Trump and his people would have taken that into consideration before the first bomb dropped. Something W and his idiots didn't do, and I'm sure Trump and his people did to ensure true and lasting success, but slogans and feels like with W.