(03-26-2026 01:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 12:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Then you are saying the strait is going to be shut down until there are boots on the ground, and not some small amount to take an island but actually on the ground in mainland Iran. There is no completely eliminating their ability to fire drones at the strait otherwise.

I dont agree with that at all. The crappy little Shaed-136 drones are easily intercepted. The key is to intercept them in a way that is economically sustainable. You dont want to spend 2 million on an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile to splash a Shahed drone that cost $30K. Between complete air supremacy and a presence along the coast---that should be enough to provide a protective belt where these drones can be eliminated before they threaten shipping. Eventually, as the leadership will learn that continuing on the current government behavior path is a death sentence for anyone promoted to leadership. Once that sinks in, along with the fact they no longer have any means of projecting power---they will be forced to make a deal (assuming their people or the regular military doesnt overthrow the regime before they figure out the obvious).

That's the problem though, we don't have a cheap way to shoot those things down. They have 10's of thousands of them and they cost essentially nothing to make, and everything we have to shoot them down costs millions and takes years to produce. Also, a presence along the coast? So you mean troops on the ground across the entire coast of Iran? Do you realize how much coast you are talking about here? There is over 900 miles of Iranian coastline from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. To put that into perspective they have about 100 miles more of coastline there than the state of California. You are not holding that and intercepting everything they try to shoot with some small force. Iran is a massive country. 4 times the size of Iraq, 2.5 times the size of Texas, roughly the same land area of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. We don't have the planes to control the entirety of that sky 247 nor do we have the stomach to put in the number of troops needed to control that entire coastline to ensure ships can go through the strait. They also don't need to show the ability to hit every single ship that tries to cross to close it, they just have to show the ability to hit one and no one will insure them and the strait is closed. On the other hand we'd have to show we have the ability to 100% secure safe passage for all ships or they aren't going to risk it. The bar they have to clear to keep it closed is very low and very easy for them to do.

There are small islands all along the coast. You dont have to take and hold the whole coast to create the presence needed for drone interceptions. Secondly---and this is where I have a problem with Trump---the Ukrainians have a CHEAP drone interceptor solution for these Shahed-136 prop driven drones. We have a drone interceptor (The Coyote)----and its quite good--but it costs $100K a drone. Now thats WAAAY better than a missile---but it still loses the economic battle. The Ukrainians are building effective interceptor drones for couple thousand dollars or less. THATS what we need---and Trump rejecting their expertise in this area is just stupid.

See at the end you get into the real problem, and it's not an exclusive Trump problem. We could invest comparatively pennies in creating massive amounts of those cheap drone interceptors, but you can't do that and have hundreds of billions in grift and keep stock prices up for these parasite weapons manufacturers.

Its not really the weapons manufacturer. Its a US military mindset at the top. We want to have the very best top of the line tech that is better than everyone else's weapon system. Frankly, I absolutely agree with that mindset---to a point. I think our top weapon systems in most every category should be the best in the world.

However, not every weapon system in the entire inventory needs to be the Cadillac of its category. We need a high-low balance in our weapons capability. In addition to the super smart high tech wiz bang missile in each category----we also need a cheap simple relatively effective missile that is similar---but is the kind of weapon where availability and affordability in large sustainable quantities is its most valuable attribute. Our defense contractors build what we ask them to. We just need to ask them to build it and we will have companies willing to do it. Anduril is a relatively new defense contractor that seems to be looking to make that "low end" weapon niche its own.

(03-26-2026 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 01:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 12:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 10:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont agree with that at all. The crappy little Shaed-136 drones are easily intercepted. The key is to intercept them in a way that is economically sustainable. You dont want to spend 2 million on an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile to splash a Shahed drone that cost $30K. Between complete air supremacy and a presence along the coast---that should be enough to provide a protective belt where these drones can be eliminated before they threaten shipping. Eventually, as the leadership will learn that continuing on the current government behavior path is a death sentence for anyone promoted to leadership. Once that sinks in, along with the fact they no longer have any means of projecting power---they will be forced to make a deal (assuming their people or the regular military doesnt overthrow the regime before they figure out the obvious).

That's the problem though, we don't have a cheap way to shoot those things down. They have 10's of thousands of them and they cost essentially nothing to make, and everything we have to shoot them down costs millions and takes years to produce. Also, a presence along the coast? So you mean troops on the ground across the entire coast of Iran? Do you realize how much coast you are talking about here? There is over 900 miles of Iranian coastline from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. To put that into perspective they have about 100 miles more of coastline there than the state of California. You are not holding that and intercepting everything they try to shoot with some small force. Iran is a massive country. 4 times the size of Iraq, 2.5 times the size of Texas, roughly the same land area of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. We don't have the planes to control the entirety of that sky 247 nor do we have the stomach to put in the number of troops needed to control that entire coastline to ensure ships can go through the strait. They also don't need to show the ability to hit every single ship that tries to cross to close it, they just have to show the ability to hit one and no one will insure them and the strait is closed. On the other hand we'd have to show we have the ability to 100% secure safe passage for all ships or they aren't going to risk it. The bar they have to clear to keep it closed is very low and very easy for them to do.

There are small islands all along the coast. You dont have to take and hold the whole coast to create the presence needed for drone interceptions. Secondly---and this is where I have a problem with Trump---the Ukrainians have a CHEAP drone interceptor solution for these Shahed-136 prop driven drones. We have a drone interceptor (The Coyote)----and its quite good--but it costs $100K a drone. Now thats WAAAY better than a missile---but it still loses the economic battle. The Ukrainians are building effective interceptor drones for couple thousand dollars or less. THATS what we need---and Trump rejecting their expertise in this area is just stupid.

See at the end you get into the real problem, and it's not an exclusive Trump problem. We could invest comparatively pennies in creating massive amounts of those cheap drone interceptors, but you can't do that and have hundreds of billions in grift and keep stock prices up for these parasite weapons manufacturers.

Its not really the weapons manufacturer. Its a US military mindset at the top. We want to have the very best top of the line tech that is better than everyone else's weapon system. Frankly, I absolutely agree with that mindset---to a point. I think our top weapon systems in most every category should be the best in the world.

However, not every weapon system in the entire inventory needs to be the Cadillac of its category. We need a high-low balance in our weapons capability. In addition to the super smart high tech wiz bang missile in each category----we also need a cheap simple relatively effective missile that is similar---but is the kind of weapon where availability and affordability in large sustainable quantities is its most valuable attribute. Our defense contractors build what we ask them to. We just need to ask them to build it and we will have companies willing to do it. Anduril is a relatively new defense contractor that seems to be looking to make that "low end" weapon niche its own.

We don't disagree, it's just not going to happen.

(03-26-2026 01:08 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 12:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey BoJo, if I couldn't find my birth certificate and had to ask my mommy for it, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the US military.

Nice red herring! Wanna talk about paying my loans or something else that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? People who have the facts on their side don't have to be this pathetic.

Facts? Everything you posted is a OPINION. Show us the facts? You have zero ideal about their drones or how many they started with or how many was taken out from a bomb landing on the warehouse. That's your OPINION.....not close to a FACT.

Almost like you said you "heard" Trump, with your own ears, say they were surprised by Iran trying to close the strait. Someone asked for a link you never addressed it. So where's your link on the unlimited drones? That would be a FACT. Otherwise its your opinion.

(03-26-2026 01:40 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 01:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 12:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  That's the problem though, we don't have a cheap way to shoot those things down. They have 10's of thousands of them and they cost essentially nothing to make, and everything we have to shoot them down costs millions and takes years to produce. Also, a presence along the coast? So you mean troops on the ground across the entire coast of Iran? Do you realize how much coast you are talking about here? There is over 900 miles of Iranian coastline from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. To put that into perspective they have about 100 miles more of coastline there than the state of California. You are not holding that and intercepting everything they try to shoot with some small force. Iran is a massive country. 4 times the size of Iraq, 2.5 times the size of Texas, roughly the same land area of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. We don't have the planes to control the entirety of that sky 247 nor do we have the stomach to put in the number of troops needed to control that entire coastline to ensure ships can go through the strait. They also don't need to show the ability to hit every single ship that tries to cross to close it, they just have to show the ability to hit one and no one will insure them and the strait is closed. On the other hand we'd have to show we have the ability to 100% secure safe passage for all ships or they aren't going to risk it. The bar they have to clear to keep it closed is very low and very easy for them to do.

There are small islands all along the coast. You dont have to take and hold the whole coast to create the presence needed for drone interceptions. Secondly---and this is where I have a problem with Trump---the Ukrainians have a CHEAP drone interceptor solution for these Shahed-136 prop driven drones. We have a drone interceptor (The Coyote)----and its quite good--but it costs $100K a drone. Now thats WAAAY better than a missile---but it still loses the economic battle. The Ukrainians are building effective interceptor drones for couple thousand dollars or less. THATS what we need---and Trump rejecting their expertise in this area is just stupid.

See at the end you get into the real problem, and it's not an exclusive Trump problem. We could invest comparatively pennies in creating massive amounts of those cheap drone interceptors, but you can't do that and have hundreds of billions in grift and keep stock prices up for these parasite weapons manufacturers.

Its not really the weapons manufacturer. Its a US military mindset at the top. We want to have the very best top of the line tech that is better than everyone else's weapon system. Frankly, I absolutely agree with that mindset---to a point. I think our top weapon systems in most every category should be the best in the world.

However, not every weapon system in the entire inventory needs to be the Cadillac of its category. We need a high-low balance in our weapons capability. In addition to the super smart high tech wiz bang missile in each category----we also need a cheap simple relatively effective missile that is similar---but is the kind of weapon where availability and affordability in large sustainable quantities is its most valuable attribute. Our defense contractors build what we ask them to. We just need to ask them to build it and we will have companies willing to do it. Anduril is a relatively new defense contractor that seems to be looking to make that "low end" weapon niche its own.

We don't disagree, it's just not going to happen.

I think it might. The Ukrainian War (as well as the current Iranian conflict) is making it clear we need MUCH deeper ammo stores and more affordable alternatives for taking down cheaply made suicide drones. It may take a while---but eventually the mindset at the top will see the light (probably are already figuring it out).

Trump today moved the negotiation deadline with Iran back from tomorrow, March 27, to April 6.

I think he is trying for the surprise.

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think [Trump] is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

I believe (hope) Trump is aware of that.

But even if he isn’t, you can bet your life the Israelis and the Saudis and most of the other Arabs are aware of it. So I’m not too worried about the current Iranian leadership walking away from this in one piece. The question is not whether but when.

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

People misinterpret DJT. He's a businessman first and politician second, or maybe lower. Businesspeople are positive about everything until a deal falls through. But they always plan for what happens if it does. Politicians' lower expectations because they hate to look ill-informed or ill-prepared in public. Businesspeople create opportunities for deals. Politicians cover their ass. Trump frequently looks like an ass because he is more concerned with the objective than the protocol. Politicians look thoughtful by not pushing for things unless they know the votes are there. Well in dealing with Iran there is no satisfactory compromise short of no nukes and no nuke development, and a softened stance toward their neighbors and a less antagonistic stance toward Israel. The tricky and sticky wicket of compromise isn't there for a politician.

Trump's lack of an ambassadorial nature sometimes makes me cringe. His pursuit of what he wants as what is best for America never does! I like to see him push for the best solution for U.S. And I'm damned tired of hearing American elected officials apologizing for this country and its government. Those are the losers who need to be booted from office regardless of party affiliation.

(03-26-2026 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

People misinterpret DJT. He's a businessman first and politician second, or maybe lower. Businesspeople are positive about everything until a deal falls through. But they always plan for what happens if it does. Politicians' lower expectations because they hate to look ill-informed or ill-prepared in public. Businesspeople create opportunities for deals. Politicians cover their ass. Trump frequently looks like an ass because he is more concerned with the objective than the protocol. Politicians look thoughtful by not pushing for things unless they know the votes are there. Well in dealing with Iran there is no satisfactory compromise short of no nukes and no nuke development, and a softened stance toward their neighbors and a less antagonistic stance toward Israel. The tricky and sticky wicket of compromise isn't there for a politician.

Trump's lack of an ambassadorial nature sometimes makes me cringe. His pursuit of what he wants as what is best for America never does! I like to see him push for the best solution for U.S. And I'm damned tired of hearing American elected officials apologizing for this country and its government. Those are the losers who need to be booted from office regardless of party affiliation.

I agree with all that. I was in business all my working life, frequently selling and managing $10M deals and up.

But my POV is based on my impression of the Iranians, not Trump. They don't negotiate. They delay and obfuscate. And they are a death cult.

(03-26-2026 09:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

People misinterpret DJT. He's a businessman first and politician second, or maybe lower. Businesspeople are positive about everything until a deal falls through. But they always plan for what happens if it does. Politicians' lower expectations because they hate to look ill-informed or ill-prepared in public. Businesspeople create opportunities for deals. Politicians cover their ass. Trump frequently looks like an ass because he is more concerned with the objective than the protocol. Politicians look thoughtful by not pushing for things unless they know the votes are there. Well in dealing with Iran there is no satisfactory compromise short of no nukes and no nuke development, and a softened stance toward their neighbors and a less antagonistic stance toward Israel. The tricky and sticky wicket of compromise isn't there for a politician.

Trump's lack of an ambassadorial nature sometimes makes me cringe. His pursuit of what he wants as what is best for America never does! I like to see him push for the best solution for U.S. And I'm damned tired of hearing American elected officials apologizing for this country and its government. Those are the losers who need to be booted from office regardless of party affiliation.

I agree with all that. I was in business all my working life, frequently selling and managing $10M deals and up.

But my POV is based on my impression of the Iranians, not Trump. They don't negotiate. They delay and obfuscate. And they are a death cult.

And DJT knows that if he wipes them out, he has to have very clearly offered them a better path than the one we all know they will choose. Then what comes is on them, and not him. It's the same reason I said he should notify those not in support of the radicals a specified time period in which to exit Iran. It clears the way for a more comprehensive prosecution to the end of hostilities.

So how long can the regime last with no oil sales? They were in pretty bad financial shape before the war. They are bound to be nearing a point where replacing anything will be impossible. And that includes food.

(03-26-2026 09:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

People misinterpret DJT. He's a businessman first and politician second, or maybe lower. Businesspeople are positive about everything until a deal falls through. But they always plan for what happens if it does. Politicians' lower expectations because they hate to look ill-informed or ill-prepared in public. Businesspeople create opportunities for deals. Politicians cover their ass. Trump frequently looks like an ass because he is more concerned with the objective than the protocol. Politicians look thoughtful by not pushing for things unless they know the votes are there. Well in dealing with Iran there is no satisfactory compromise short of no nukes and no nuke development, and a softened stance toward their neighbors and a less antagonistic stance toward Israel. The tricky and sticky wicket of compromise isn't there for a politician.

Trump's lack of an ambassadorial nature sometimes makes me cringe. His pursuit of what he wants as what is best for America never does! I like to see him push for the best solution for U.S. And I'm damned tired of hearing American elected officials apologizing for this country and its government. Those are the losers who need to be booted from office regardless of party affiliation.

I agree with all that. I was in business all my working life, frequently selling and managing $10M deals and up.

But my POV is based on my impression of the Iranians, not Trump. They don't negotiate. They delay and obfuscate. And they are a death cult.

And DJT knows that if he wipes them out, he has to have very clearly offered them a better path than the one we all know they will choose. Then what comes is on them, and not him. It's the same reason I said he should notify those not in support of the radicals a specified time period in which to exit Iran. It clears the way for a more comprehensive prosecution to the end of hostilities.

Yeah, one of his best traits is deal making, of course, and I can't recall a time, when he was trying to make a deal, that he wasn't more than patient and more than fair with trying to give the other side a reasonable path forward.

When that failed, then he would crush them. He appears to run his wars exactly the same way.

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

We cannot send troops in. We could take Tehran fairly easily (with a couple of months to position forces), but then the guerilla warfare would be awful.

You just have to keep killing them and hope the Iranian people take matters into their own hands.

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

If he's cutting a deal with them, then they will probably remain in power. Im not crazy about that---but if their ability to project power outside of Iran is completely neutered (and we can continually verify compliance)---then I care a lot less about who is in charge there. My guess is thats the way Trump sees it as well. I think his primary goal is a non-nuclear Iran. As long as that is guaranteed---then he's likely going to opt for the quickest and least costly way to get that done.

(03-26-2026 11:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

If he's cutting a deal with them, then they will probably remain in power. Im not crazy about that---but if their ability to project power outside of Iran is completely neutered (and we can continually verify compliance)---then I care a lot less about who is in charge there. My guess is thats the way Trump sees it as well. I think his primary goal is a non-nuclear Iran. As long as that is guaranteed---then he's likely going to opt for the quickest and least costly way to get that done.

I don't disagree. I just don't think the current regime will ever stop being bad actors, which means that sooner or later, we may have to do all this all over again.

Trump did just extend the deadline to April 6. Not sure why it should take that long for Iranian leaders to give an answer. Meanwhile, we're going to continue bombing military targets, but not the power grid.

There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights? We all know that's not what would happen. We'd put in some kind of puppet regime for "stability" and then if we ever did allow elections if they elected someone the US or Israel didn't approve of we would pretend they weren't fair and not recognize them, we wouldn't let them have any control over their own military and defense, and we'd for sure take advantage of their oil and gas resources. And all of that is under the "best case scenario" where we helped. In the worst case scenario where we didn't help the whole country falls into massive civil war and you have the whole country fall apart and become a complete fail state. Neither of those sound like scenarios where I'd want to rise up and risk my life to attempt to overthrow my own government.

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights?

That post is in the running for the most ridiculous thing anybody has said on this board in a long time.

Are you serious? You think bombing Iran is going to make the people rally around the current government?

They have killed tens of thousands of their own citizens just for showing up to protest in the streets. Maybe look up the reactions of expat Iranians here and in other countries.

(03-27-2026 08:44 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights?

That post is in the running for the most ridiculous thing anybody has said on this board in a long time.

Are you serious? You think bombing Iran is going to make the people rally around the current government?

They have killed tens of thousands of their own citizens just for showing up to protest in the streets.

Yes, I 100% think that. You seriously think bombing the holy hell out of a place is going to make the people rally around the people doing the bombing? Even in a world where we were just purely bombing military targets I'd say that's pretty stupid, but when you are bombing schools, hospitals, oil fields, all sorts of civilian targets why on earth would the people rally around and trust the people doing said bombing? You know deep down how stupid that sounds.

And the reactions of ex pats does not matter. The ex pats aren't going in to liberate their country. It has to be the people you are currently bombing the holy hell out of have to rise up and attack their own government and inherently trust that the current attackers are going to have their backs. Why? Why would or should they trust that?

Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.