Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

Trump doesn't have the rest of his term. He has until midterms which are very close.

Straight of Hormuz is not international waters and is governed by Oman and Iran. According to UNCLOS, it should still be governed by Int Water rules, however Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS and is, therefore, arguing it doesn't apply to them

Jeeper79 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

Trump doesn't have the rest of his term. He has until midterms which are very close.

---

Why? They won't have 67 in the Senate to remove him and there is no 3rd term.

You are more likely to find out just how strong the Executive is vs how stronf a slim majority in Congress is at reigning in a POTUS with nothing to lose.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

EFR said:
There is no plan, not even a "concept of a plan".

---

Geminiv said:


There never was. About as well as Putin planned on invading Ukraine.

---

There is literally a plan. Has been from day one. They talk about it almost daily.

You and others are confusing not having a plan with plans not always going according to the plan.

So, if you want to find some fault then focus on the reality that our original plan got punched in the mouth and we've had to audible.

The ceasefire strategy partially to avoid War Powers Act restrictions, ship escorts, and the surrounding countries in that part of the world now exploring alternate paths and modes for moving O&G is that audible.

Y'all are flat out letting your TDS overrule objective and critical thought.

---

I guess a ****ty play that had no chance of working is better than no plan...lol

Iced-T14 said:

---

Straight of Hormuz is not international waters and is governed by Oman and Iran. According to UNCLOS, it should still be governed by Int Water rules, however Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS and is, therefore, arguing it doesn't apply to them

---

Since the dawn of shipping the concept of "international waters" and the free flow of goods through such was always understood as the "law of the seas".

Whether or not Iran is party to some obscure "rule" by the UN dreamt up in the 1980s.

If Iran wants to say it's their territory, then they likely will learn quickly that Kharg and Bander Abbas is no longer theirs.

fullback44 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Iran knows their best bet is the long game because Trump won't be president in three years, and the American public doesn't have the long term commitment. Three years to them is the blink of an eye. Their populace is largely at the mercy of the IRGC. They are still executing dissent. The masses are unhappy, but they have no weapons. Unless we put boots in country (I see that as a longshot), the Mullahs and Ayatollahs just wait us out.

---

Trump won't wait 3 years to finish the job he may give them 12 months again so that the Moussad can gather more information then we will come at them again . Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery

---

There should be no, "we need to more anything"

Everything that was needed to start and finish a war should've been known long before the green light was given. To have less due diligence is careless, reckless, and no different, again, than Iraq. Save, well, that we were forced into it (can't believe America was forced because of Israel, but whatever) this, but even then, that's no excuse.

---

Hey that's my 2 cents …. I may be right you never know. This may be there strategy…. Back off and wait too see who is still pushing the old regime and then take them out. I know one thing, the media has zero clue as to what's really going on behind the scenes…. They throw crap at the wall daily that doesn't come to fruition… myself, I'll wait and see how this plays out. I doubt 1 person on this board has any real clue or knows the US playbook on this.

---

Yeah, lots of 'experts' on here telling us the whole thing is a failure unless we can 100% guarantee Iran will be peaceful for-e-ver. Hitting their facilities and taking out much of their military sites and leadership was worth it after decades of U.S. leaders sitting by while Iran thumbed its nose and kept poking the bear.

There is certainly debate over what could/should be done after that and how we'll move on from it. That's fair.

But it is amusing to watch all of the 'experts' come out of the woodwork.

Quote:

---

Trump doesn't have the guts to stick it out. He's like the bully on the playground who starts something on the spur of the moment and then cries how unfair it is when his desires don't come to fruition.

---

Yes, clearly Iran is the victim of the big mean bully Trump. Iran has never bullied anyone on the playground and cried how unfair it is when someone hits back. Such educated analysis of what's going on in the world.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

EFR said:
There is no plan, not even a "concept of a plan".

---

Geminiv said:


There never was. About as well as Putin planned on invading Ukraine.

---

There is literally a plan. Has been from day one. They talk about it almost daily.

You and others are confusing not having a plan with plans not always going according to the plan.

So, if you want to find some fault then focus on the reality that our original plan got punched in the mouth and we've had to audible.

The ceasefire strategy partially to avoid War Powers Act restrictions, ship escorts, and the surrounding countries in that part of the world now exploring alternate paths and modes for moving O&G is that audible.

Y'all are flat out letting your TDS overrule objective and critical thought.

---

I guess a ****ty play that had no chance of working is better than no plan...lol

---

Some of the objectives were accomplished. Some weren't or haven't been yet. So it's objectively more of a mixed bag so far.

And it's not over yet. It could get better or get worse. We don't know yet.

What do you mean by "recognized as their territory"? It IS their territory. Again, the Strait is not international waters, it is the territory of Iran and Oman. Similar to all waters within 12 nautical miles of shoreline.

In addition, the entirety of the Strait falls within the Contiguous Zone (12-24 nautical miles).

What's being challenged is if they have to allow trade through their waters or not, but the ownership of the waters is not in question

Iced-T14 said:

---

What do you mean by "recognized as their territory"? It IS their territory. Again, the Strait is not international waters, it is the territory of Iran and Oman. Similar to all waters within 12 nautical miles of shoreline.

In addition, the entirety of the Strait falls within the Contiguous Zone (12-24 nautical miles).

What's being challenged is if they have to allow trade through their waters or not, but the ownership of the waters is not in question

---

You just said Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS but now say because of UNCLOS its in their "Contiguous Zone". Which is it?

International Law, of which there is much debate so lets go with longstanding international customs, consider the Strait of Hormuz as a transit passage. If Iran is now ready to bring in Iraq and Kuwait to our side of the fight, they can stand on their position that the SoH is all theirs and they will handle it as they see fit. It would also bring them further into the fray with the United Nations and overall international community.

And as I mentioned, if they want to go this route then we will proceed with the taking of their coastal territory and facilities. Strait of Freedom de Triump sounds good to me. We can then charge ships a fee to transit under our protection.

Sound good?

Quote:

---

And as I mentioned, if they want to go this route then we will proceed with the taking of their coastal territory and facilities. Strait of Freedom de Triump sounds good to me. We can then charge ships a fee to transit under our protection.

Sound good?

---

Sounds delusional

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

And as I mentioned, if they want to go this route then we will proceed with the taking of their coastal territory and facilities. Strait of Freedom de Triump sounds good to me. We can then charge ships a fee to transit under our protection.

Sound good?

---

Sounds delusional

---

No less than 3 retired generals have signaled this is a plausible and potential action. We have plans for just such action.

But yea, its delusional. Good reminder of why I pay for the ignore feature.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

What do you mean by "recognized as their territory"? It IS their territory. Again, the Strait is not international waters, it is the territory of Iran and Oman. Similar to all waters within 12 nautical miles of shoreline.

In addition, the entirety of the Strait falls within the Contiguous Zone (12-24 nautical miles).

What's being challenged is if they have to allow trade through their waters or not, but the ownership of the waters is not in question

---

You just said Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS but now say because of UNCLOS its in their "Contiguous Zone". Which is it?

International Law, of which there is much debate so lets go with longstanding international customs, consider the Strait of Hormuz as a transit passage. If Iran is now ready to bring in Iraq and Kuwait to our side of the fight, they can stand on their position that the SoH is all theirs and they will handle it as they see fit. It would also bring them further into the fray with the United Nations and overall international community.

And as I mentioned, if they want to go this route then we will proceed with the taking of their coastal territory and facilities. Strait of Freedom de Triump sounds good to me. We can then charge ships a fee to transit under our protection.

Sound good?

---

No, you're missing the point here. Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS, but doesn't mean terms like "territorial sea" or "contiguous zone" suddenly don't exist. Those are maritime norms everyone uses to describe coastal waters, whether they've signed UNCLOS or not. So there's no contradiction there.

Second, the Strait is not international waters, it is inside Iran and Oman. Basic geography.

The argument Iran is making is that the transit rights rest in whatever Iran permits (not whatever UNCLOS establishes) and is exerting their control over the Strait. To be clear, this is not new. Iran's own maritime law since 1993 has required prior approval for foreign warships and other vessels to pass through the sea. Basically the argument is that because Iran allowed it in the past, doesn't mean they need to now or in the future.

But sure, if you want to expand past the borders of this war of nuclear material into one of conquest, then go ahead and admit that you're just a warmonger

Iced-T14 said:

---

Straight of Hormuz is not international waters and is governed by Oman and Iran. According to UNCLOS, it should still be governed by Int Water rules, however Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS and is, therefore, arguing it doesn't apply to them

---

The TSS is in Oman waters. Iran has no legitimate right to be interfering in it at all...UNCLOS or no UNCLOS.

Ag83 said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

Straight of Hormuz is not international waters and is governed by Oman and Iran. According to UNCLOS, it should still be governed by Int Water rules, however Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS and is, therefore, arguing it doesn't apply to them

---

The TSS is in Oman waters. Iran has no legitimate right to be interfering in it at all...UNCLOS or no UNCLOS.

---

Fully agree, but the original point I replied to what that it was international waters when it is not

5Amp said:

---

RangerRick9211 said:

---

5Amp said:

---

Muddyfeet said:

---

5Amp said:

---

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).

---

How is this better for Texas? Sounds great, but as an average Texan, how does this help me? Is someone paying the state a tariff? Is the State taxing it? Loading fees to the Port of Houston possibly?

---

Tax revenue from employment, fees for water ways, rail, and highways, taxes on refined fuels. literally filling the coffer with billions of dollars. Also, these companies are establishing lasting business relationships that will continue on long after the SOH is opened. I dare to say Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana will keep 30% or better of the customers they currently are dealing with once they prove the USA can be a viable, competitive source for crude oils, refined products, and LPGs.

Bessent and Trump know this, revenues generated from former Iranian oil customers will pay for the shells used to blow up Iranian assets.

Those tankers are making their way to America ports, specifically the states I named. Great news for producing red states.

---

Our crude isn't ME crude, though. Refiners need specific stock and India/Asia aren't built for ours. I dare to lol to your 30%.

Exports have jumped for all distillates from the US. But that has also squeezed the US consumer on gas, diesel and LPG. There's still a global shortage. We do have an export ceiling.

So, happy the feds and state are lining their coffers. Sucks for us normal people trying to fire up the grill or drive anywhere.

---

not only feds, state, and local governments, It's also very profitable for the smart, professional businessman and engineering types, not so much for some in other fields I suppose.

anywho, you should probably research before rattling off garbage AS YOU LAUGH at my conservative 30% estimate.

Grok
Yes, Alaska grade crude (primarily Alaska North Slope or ANS crude) is generally compatible with many Asian and especially Indian refineries, though it may require some operational adjustments in less complex facilities.
Key Properties of Alaska North Slope (ANS) Crude
ANS is a medium sour crude:
API gravity: Typically 2932 (medium density; flows reasonably well but not as light as WTI ~3941).
Sulfur content: Around 0.91.1% (sour, but not extremely high like some heavy Middle Eastern grades at 23%+).
This profile yields a balanced mix of products (good for diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline) but needs desulfurization units.
Compatibility with Asian/Indian Refineries
Asian refiners (e.g., Japan, South Korea): They have recently purchased ANS cargoes, especially amid Middle East supply disruptions. Shorter shipping times from Alaska (~815 days faster than Middle East routes) are a big plus. However, some Japanese refiners note technical challenges like higher metallic impurities, which may need extra processing equipment for large volumes.
Indian refineries: Highly capable due to high complexity. India's largest complex (Reliance Jamnagar) has the world's highest Nelson Complexity Index (~21.1) and has processed over 216 different crude grades, including heavy/sour varieties from Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. It handles wide variations in API gravity and sulfur content efficiently, turning lower-quality crudes into high-value fuels.
Most modern Indian refineries (e.g., those of IOCL, BPCL, HPCL, and Reliance) are configured for medium-to-heavy sour crudes common from the Middle East and Russia. ANS fits well within this rangeit's not overly heavy or ultra-sour, so blending or minor adjustments suffice. India already imports significant U.S. crude (including various grades), and its refiners have flexibility for spot purchases.
Practical Considerations
Logistics: Shorter Pacific routes benefit Asia vs. longer Middle East voyages. Exports from Valdez, Alaska, have gone to Asia historically and recently.
Economics: ANS can be attractive during disruptions (e.g., Hormuz issues), though it competes on price with Russian or U.S. Gulf crudes.
Limitations: Older or simpler refineries might need blending with lighter/sweeter crudes for optimal yields, but this is standard industry practice.
In summary, yesit's capable and has been used successfully, particularly in complex Indian facilities and select Asian ones. Compatibility depends on the specific refinery's configuration, but India's refining sector is among the most adaptable globally. For current market details, check trade data from EIA or shipping trackers.

---

What is this AI slop?

Think for yourself, bud. Alaska doesn't export much crude. 90% of it goes to CA/WA for domestic refining. Almost all of US exports are from PADD 3. Grok doing you dirty. Why no mention of TX/LA?

Quote:

---

For current market details, check trade data from EIA or shipping trackers.

---

Thanks for the suggestion, Grok. I already do/did in my original response. Maybe tell your master to "research before rattling off garbage."

Export of crude by PADD: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_R30-Z00_mbbl_m.htm

Insane to simp for corp/govt. revenues over normal Americans, including yourself. If you drive, fly or buy you're taking it up the wallet right now. Have a great summer.

Iced-T14 said:

---

No, you're missing the point here. Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS, but doesn't mean terms like "territorial sea" or "contiguous zone" suddenly don't exist. Those are maritime norms everyone uses to describe coastal waters, whether they've signed UNCLOS or not. So there's no contradiction there.

Second, the Strait is not international waters, it is inside Iran and Oman. Basic geography.

The argument Iran is making is that the transit rights rest in whatever Iran permits (not whatever UNCLOS establishes) and is exerting their control over the Strait. To be clear, this is not new. Iran's own maritime law since 1993 has required prior approval for foreign warships and other vessels to pass through the sea. Basically the argument is that because Iran allowed it in the past, doesn't mean they need to now or in the future.

But sure, if you want to expand past the borders of this war of nuclear material into one of conquest, then go ahead and admit that you're just a warmonger

---

Says who? Iran prefers some outdated 1958 interpretation for their 1993 guidance on what they think they have the right to do.. Most of the modern world observes that the strait should be free and open to international transport. But Iced-T14 has their own interpretation of international norms and laws so we will just go with that. Funny.

Here in the land of reality, we must consider all applicable rules, roles and players.

For the lazy warmonger comment, securing the Strait of Hormuz from Iran influence, control, harassing, attacking commerce, or tolling was a day 1 objective. If that means us securing the shoreline and strategic points, then that is an escalation, not expansion.

'How about you just go ahead and admit you may not be working with all the information and have some very bizarre takes as to what Iran has and does not have the right(s) to.

RangerRick9211 said:

---

What is this AI slop?

Think for yourself, bud. Alaska doesn't export much crude. 90% of it goes to CA/WA for domestic refining. Almost all of US exports are from PADD 3. Grok doing you dirty. Why no mention of TX/LA?

Quote:

---

For current market details, check trade data from EIA or shipping trackers.

---

Thanks for the suggestion, Grok. I already do/did in my original response. Maybe tell your master to "research before rattling off garbage."

Export of crude by PADD: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_R30-Z00_mbbl_m.htm

Insane to simp for corp/govt. revenues over normal Americans, including yourself. If you drive, fly or buy you're taking it up the wallet right now. Have a great summer.

---

Sorry your gas is temporarily higher. Its peanuts compared to the long-term benefits of Trump forgoing politics and doing what is right for the United States of America.

Heard a new term today. American Derangement Syndrome. Wanting perpetually bad things for America as long as its a short term win against Orange Man.

Yeah this rooting against America because they hate Trump so much just doesn't make sense to me. I never thought I'd see the day where they won't accept anything but a Trump loss.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

No, you're missing the point here. Iran hasn't ratified UNCLOS, but doesn't mean terms like "territorial sea" or "contiguous zone" suddenly don't exist. Those are maritime norms everyone uses to describe coastal waters, whether they've signed UNCLOS or not. So there's no contradiction there.

Second, the Strait is not international waters, it is inside Iran and Oman. Basic geography.

The argument Iran is making is that the transit rights rest in whatever Iran permits (not whatever UNCLOS establishes) and is exerting their control over the Strait. To be clear, this is not new. Iran's own maritime law since 1993 has required prior approval for foreign warships and other vessels to pass through the sea. Basically the argument is that because Iran allowed it in the past, doesn't mean they need to now or in the future.

But sure, if you want to expand past the borders of this war of nuclear material into one of conquest, then go ahead and admit that you're just a warmonger

---

Says who? Iran prefers some outdated 1958 interpretation for their 1993 guidance on what they think they have the right to do.. Most of the modern world observes that the strait should be free and open to international transport. But Iced-T14 has their own interpretation of international norms and laws so we will just go with that. Funny.

Here in the land of reality, we must consider all applicable rules, roles and players.

For the lazy warmonger comment, securing the Strait of Hormuz from Iran influence, control, harassing, attacking commerce, or tolling was a day 1 objective. If that means us securing the shoreline and strategic points, then that is an escalation, not expansion.

'How about you just go ahead and admit you may not be working with all the information and have some very bizarre takes as to what Iran has and does not have the right(s) to.

---

Strait of Hormuz was not a "Day 1 objective", it wasn't considered an objective at all until the Iranian blockaide. In fact, it didn't become a formalized focal point untol "Project Freedom" which was announced May 3rd. In case you need a reminder of the goals straight from the White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/04/president-trumps-clear-and-unchanging-objectives-drive-decisive-success-against-iranian-regime/

As for who has sovereignty over the strait, please consult a map.. any map... It is not international waters, which was my initial point. You are arguing Rite of Passage, which is different that who actually controls it. I'm just presenting Iran's viewpoint as to why they believe they can shut it down

Iced-T14 said:

---

Strait of Hormuz was not a "Day 1 objective", it wasn't considered an objective at all until the Iranian blockaide. In fact, it didn't become a formalized focal point untol "Project Freedom" which was announced May 3rd. In case you need a reminder of the goals straight from the White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/04/president-trumps-clear-and-unchanging-objectives-drive-decisive-success-against-iranian-regime/

As for who has sovereignty over the strait, please consult a map.. any map... It is not international waters, which was my initial point. You are arguing Rite of Passage, which is different that who actually controls it. I'm just presenting Iran's viewpoint as to why they believe they can shut it down

---

You may want to check you source there as it pretty clearly says over and over a Day 1 objective is to annihilate Iran's Navy.

Outside of harrassing traffic in the SoH, what purpose do you think Iran's Navy was serving? And in particularly why we would consider it a Day 1 target.

And laughable to say Iran has a "blockade" outside of they convinced insurance carriers in Europe, mainstream media in America and some concerned moderates that have "total control" over the stright.

"Right of Passage" vs "international waters" in this regards is a distinction without a difference.

I am presenting the realist viewpoint that we can control it, and will, and that this was a day 1 objective as your link confirms (over and over and over again by all the cabinet members and POTUS quoted at the link).

Iran has the right to control passage on the Oman side?

Rockdoc said:

---

Iran has the right to control passage on the Oman side?

---

Its clear they have not at all thought through their position(s). Give them a bit of time for Reddit to feed in some more points.

Rockdoc said:

---

Iran has the right to control passage on the Oman side?

---

Again, not what I was arguing

Iced-T14 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Iran has the right to control passage on the Oman side?

---

Again, not what I was arguing

---

Ok, so Iran does not control the strait.

Rockdoc said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Iran has the right to control passage on the Oman side?

---

Again, not what I was arguing

---

Ok, so Iran does not control the strait.

---

Correct, but It's also not international waters. Iran's claim is that it has authority to regulate or control passage through its side of the Strait. Whether Iran's claim is lawful under modern international norms is a separate question. I'm stating what they are claiming (that they have a right) and that it is technically Iran and Oman waters. Nowhere did I state anything to the contrary.

However the argument that they are blocking international waters vs right of transit passage is an important distinction because it changes the scope of the war. If the issue is enforcing transit passage through an international strait, that is different from claiming the U.S. went to war to seize or control the waterway itself. One makes it entirely easier for us to claim victory and get out of this mess. The other will further down the path to another Afghanistan or Iraq

It is legally recognized as an "international strait".

Yes, it is an international strait. That does not mean it is "international waters." Those are different legal concepts, and mixing them together is the problem.
If we are claiming the U.S. must control Hormuz, that is a completely different war aim than securing passage through Hormuz. Specifically for this threads stated purpose of "exit strategy", the latter gives us much more attainable objective whereas the former will drag this out

Iced-T14 said:

---

Yes, it is an international strait. That does not mean it is "international waters." Those are different legal concepts, and mixing them together is the problem.
If we are claiming the U.S. must control Hormuz, that is a completely different war aim than securing passage through Hormuz.

---

I don't believe I said it was international water. I just said Iran couldn't control it.

Original Operation Epic Fury objectives:
- Regime change: clearly off the table
- Destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities: no progress made
- Strait of Hormuz: wasn't even an objective and was open before the war, but now closed for the foreseeable future

What exactly has been achieved, besides the 'annihilation' of the Iranian navy, which is debatable at best?

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Original Operation Epic Fury objectives:
- Regime change: clearly off the table
- Destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities: no progress made
- Strait of Hormuz: wasn't even an objective and was open before the war, but now closed for the foreseeable future

What exactly has been achieved, besides the 'annihilation' of the Iranian navy, which is debatable at best?

---

You got 1 out of 5 correct. No reason to lie about it.

1. Destroy Iran's missile capabilities

2. Cripple Iran's military (especially the navy)

3. Prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon

4. Dismantle support for proxy groups

5. Neutralize "imminent threats" to the U.S. and allies

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump doesn't have the guts to stick it out. He's like the bully on the playground who starts something on the spur of the moment and then cries how unfair it is when his desires don't come to fruition.

---

Yes, clearly Iran is the victim of the big mean bully Trump. Iran has never bullied anyone on the playground and cried how unfair it is when someone hits back. Such educated analysis of what's going on in the world.

---

There isn't just one bully.

In what world is eliminating Iran's nuclear capability even a possibility?

They're a highly populated, highly educated, relatively affluent Country with several neighbors who they do not get along with at all.

You're not going to keep them from getting a nuke unless you actually "destroy their civilization" which we are obviously not going to do.

It's Iran this week, Iraq last week, and it will be somebody and some other Country next week. Such is life when you have a trillion dollar military industry to keep fed.

eric76 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump doesn't have the guts to stick it out. He's like the bully on the playground who starts something on the spur of the moment and then cries how unfair it is when his desires don't come to fruition.

---

Yes, clearly Iran is the victim of the big mean bully Trump. Iran has never bullied anyone on the playground and cried how unfair it is when someone hits back. Such educated analysis of what's going on in the world.

---

There isn't just one bully.

---

Yes, there is this case. Iran has bullied Israel and U.S. troops for decades in the ME. They have funded and given aid to terrorist organizations that have murdered innocent civilians and harmed/killed U.S. troops.

The idea that Donald Trump started this fight with Iran shows your complete ignorance of history and what's gone on that region for decades. It's a fight that's been going on via proxy for many years. But because he chose to bomb them, he's the bully on the playground who can't finish anything. Do you even understand how ignorant that sounds?

Gigem314 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump doesn't have the guts to stick it out. He's like the bully on the playground who starts something on the spur of the moment and then cries how unfair it is when his desires don't come to fruition.

---

Yes, clearly Iran is the victim of the big mean bully Trump. Iran has never bullied anyone on the playground and cried how unfair it is when someone hits back. Such educated analysis of what's going on in the world.

---

There isn't just one bully.

---

Yes, there is this case. Iran has bullied Israel and U.S. troops for decades in the ME. They have funded and given aid to terrorist organizations that have murdered innocent civilians and harmed/killed U.S. troops.

The idea that Donald Trump started this fight with Iran shows your complete ignorance of history and what's gone on that region for decades. It's a fight that's been going on via proxy for many years. But because he chose to bomb them, he's the bully on the playground who can't finish anything. Do you even understand how ignorant that sounds?

---

Nonsense.

Yeah, we have had issues with Iran over time. But anyone who thinks that we can force regime change by dropping a few bombs on them is an idiot.

If we want regime change, it will take troops on the ground. A lot of troops on the ground.