(03-23-2026 10:02 AM)hburg Wrote: This is from Amir, with his thoughts. He also stated this news is causing more division in Iran and are forcing them to seek out traitors in their own ranks.
Quote:FOX News: The 82nd Airborne Division has arrived in the Middle East.
The Amphibious Ready Group of the USS Tripoli is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days with more than 2,000 Marines, and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Boxer is also expected to arrive.
Trump is buying time, and with a few tweets he has already managed to lower oil prices and boost the stock market.
As I said, don’t listen to what he says - the war will continue.
(03-23-2026 10:02 AM)hburg Wrote: This is from Amir, with his thoughts. He also stated this news is causing more division in Iran and are forcing them to seek out traitors in their own ranks.
Quote:FOX News: The 82nd Airborne Division has arrived in the Middle East.
The Amphibious Ready Group of the USS Tripoli is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days with more than 2,000 Marines, and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Boxer is also expected to arrive.
Trump is buying time, and with a few tweets he has already managed to lower oil prices and boost the stock market.
As I said, don’t listen to what he says - the war will continue.
Watch his actions
Trump 101
Right. It also could be both are stating the truth to an extent. There may be no traditional direct talks. Could be back channel talks via intermediaries or---as someone else stated----we could be speaking to internal elements that are not top leadership---or even some combination of the above. That said, after showing how out of control these folks are, I have my doubts we can agree to current leadership staying in power unless they are completely defanged.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2026 11:58 AM by Attackcoog.)
(03-23-2026 10:02 AM)hburg Wrote: This is from Amir, with his thoughts. He also stated this news is causing more division in Iran and are forcing them to seek out traitors in their own ranks.
Quote:FOX News: The 82nd Airborne Division has arrived in the Middle East.
The Amphibious Ready Group of the USS Tripoli is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days with more than 2,000 Marines, and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Boxer is also expected to arrive.
Trump is buying time, and with a few tweets he has already managed to lower oil prices and boost the stock market.
As I said, don’t listen to what he says - the war will continue.
Watch his actions
Trump 101
Right. It also could be both are stating the truth to an extent. There may be no traditional direct talks. Could be back channel talks via intermediaries or---as someone else stated----we could be speaking to internal elements that are not top leadership---or even some combination of the above. That said, after showing how out of control these folks are, I have my doubts we can agree to current leadership staying in power unless they are completely defanged.
With what has happened, I doubt there is one group controlling everything. It has probably splintered.
(03-23-2026 10:02 AM)hburg Wrote: This is from Amir, with his thoughts. He also stated this news is causing more division in Iran and are forcing them to seek out traitors in their own ranks.
Quote:FOX News: The 82nd Airborne Division has arrived in the Middle East.
The Amphibious Ready Group of the USS Tripoli is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days with more than 2,000 Marines, and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Boxer is also expected to arrive.
Trump is buying time, and with a few tweets he has already managed to lower oil prices and boost the stock market.
As I said, don’t listen to what he says - the war will continue.
Watch his actions
Trump 101
Right. It also could be both are stating the truth to an extent. There may be no traditional direct talks. Could be back channel talks via intermediaries or---as someone else stated----we could be speaking to internal elements that are not top leadership---or even some combination of the above. That said, after showing how out of control these folks are, I have my doubts we can agree to current leadership staying in power unless they are completely defanged.
With what has happened, I doubt there is one group controlling everything. It has probably splintered.
When the captain is dead and the ship is going down it is every man for himself.
Ghalibaf now claims there have been no talks with the US. On one side Iran admits talks on another complete denial. This may be Iran's Valkyrie moment.
(03-23-2026 12:17 PM)hburg Wrote: Ghalibaf now claims there have been no talks with the US. On one side Iran admits talks on another complete denial. This may be Iran's Valkyrie moment.
Two key differences, imho.
In Germany/1944, you still had a large core of officers who had roots in the pre-Hitler Army, which had only existed for ~10 years. In Iran/2026, OTOH, there really isn’t anyone at any level of authority whose career predates the current regime. So it becomes much more difficult to find a secret dissident.
Secondly, the situation in Germany/1944 was if you kill Hitler, the whole show would have quickly collapsed. No one else in his inner circle had any credibility with the Army *and* the Navy *and* the SS/Gestapo, etc. The Iranian power structure, it seem to me, is not so dependent on one specific individual, despite the comical “Supreme Leader” titles.
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The only way to avoid boots on the ground in Iran is to position them in the more amenable countries which border Iran and have them create safe zones for refugees from Iran. Drop the leaflets instructing Iranian citizens to one of the safe camps and explain to them that they had 7 days to make preparation and leave.
Then use some wonderfully aged technology to end this. B52 carpet bombing of everything still standing in Iran. Whatever crawls out after that won't be sufficient to put up a struggle. The difficulty here, and it is huge, is how to distinguish refugees from combatants if you invade. And avoiding the deaths of those who don't support the regime. Optics here will set the tone for future interventions. Make every effort to spare the innocent and this will work quicker should there be a next time somewhere else. Fail, and it will be boots every time.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2026 01:18 PM by JRsec.)
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The people don't have the weapons to fight the regime, and the air strikes are keeping them sheltered because they are afraid of going outside and dying from a strike. It is a no win situation for the Iranian people.
I'm with NG though, I think it would be a terrible mistake to put troops on the ground. I also think taking out civilian infrastructure would be a HUGE mistake. We'd spend years and trillions trying to rebuild it while another generation of IRGC aligned Iranians are created because of the US making their lives even worse than it was before thanks to no water, no power, etc...
(03-23-2026 10:02 AM)hburg Wrote: This is from Amir, with his thoughts. He also stated this news is causing more division in Iran and are forcing them to seek out traitors in their own ranks.
Quote:FOX News: The 82nd Airborne Division has arrived in the Middle East.
The Amphibious Ready Group of the USS Tripoli is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days with more than 2,000 Marines, and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Boxer is also expected to arrive.
Trump is buying time, and with a few tweets he has already managed to lower oil prices and boost the stock market.
As I said, don’t listen to what he says - the war will continue.
Watch his actions
Trump 101
Right. It also could be both are stating the truth to an extent. There may be no traditional direct talks. Could be back channel talks via intermediaries or---as someone else stated----we could be speaking to internal elements that are not top leadership---or even some combination of the above. That said, after showing how out of control these folks are, I have my doubts we can agree to current leadership staying in power unless they are completely defanged.
With what has happened, I doubt there is one group controlling everything. It has probably splintered.
I believe Iran basically said this was the case. They said power was divided among military districts (or something like that) with each district operating independently. So, there is almost certainly some splintering of power there.
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The only way to avoid boots on the ground in Iran is to position them in the more amenable countries which border Iran and have them create safe zones for refugees from Iran. Drop the leaflets instructing Iranian citizens to one of the safe camps and explain to them that they had 7 days to make preparation and leave.
Then use some wonderfully aged technology to end this. B52 carpet bombing of everything still standing in Iran. Whatever crawls out after that won't be sufficient to put up a struggle. The difficulty here, and it is huge, is how to distinguish refugees from combatants if you invade. And avoiding the deaths of those who don't support the regime. Optics here will set the tone for future interventions. Make every effort to spare the innocent and this will work quicker should there be a next time somewhere else. Fail, and it will be boots every time.
That strategy didn't work when that aged technology was actually modern. Also didn't work when pretty much every country in WW2 attempted it, whether it was the German's to the Brits, the Brits and the US to Germany, German's to Russia, the US to the Japanese, etc. The only "bombing" that ended a war was using nukes.
Iran is back to lobbing missiles at the Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia. Gulf countries are gonna join the fight soon. I think Trump takes Kharg island and turns off all money to the Iranian Regime. No boots outside of that island.
The communists in Cuba are probably hoping this war lasts as long as possible, because once it is over, they know they are next.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2026 01:31 PM by otown.)
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The only way to avoid boots on the ground in Iran is to position them in the more amenable countries which border Iran and have them create safe zones for refugees from Iran. Drop the leaflets instructing Iranian citizens to one of the safe camps and explain to them that they had 7 days to make preparation and leave.
Then use some wonderfully aged technology to end this. B52 carpet bombing of everything still standing in Iran. Whatever crawls out after that won't be sufficient to put up a struggle. The difficulty here, and it is huge, is how to distinguish refugees from combatants if you invade. And avoiding the deaths of those who don't support the regime. Optics here will set the tone for future interventions. Make every effort to spare the innocent and this will work quicker should there be a next time somewhere else. Fail, and it will be boots every time.
That strategy didn't work when that aged technology was actually modern. Also didn't work when pretty much every country in WW2 attempted it, whether it was the German's to the Brits, the Brits and the US to Germany, German's to Russia, the US to the Japanese, etc. The only "bombing" that ended a war was using nukes.
And that was due to the scale of it in WWII where destroying the means of production did speed the end of the war, but that was "precision" bombing instead of carpet bombing. It didn't work in Korea and Viet Nam because of the DMZs established in both conflicts. It wiped out the Republican Guard in Iraq, and only failed where Corporations friendly to America had property they wished to protect from the war so Iraqis occupied their buildings and our guys had to go door to door to secure Baghdad and other such cities.
With Iran you have a large % of populace who would like not to be bombed and to escape. The remnant of the regime under a carpet bombing assault would be emotionally shocked to the point that continuance wouldn't be likely. The scale is workable, there is a sizeable innocent population, and there is no where for the bad regime to hide that they can't be severeley shaken by the experience.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2026 01:36 PM by JRsec.)
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The only way to avoid boots on the ground in Iran is to position them in the more amenable countries which border Iran and have them create safe zones for refugees from Iran. Drop the leaflets instructing Iranian citizens to one of the safe camps and explain to them that they had 7 days to make preparation and leave.
Then use some wonderfully aged technology to end this. B52 carpet bombing of everything still standing in Iran. Whatever crawls out after that won't be sufficient to put up a struggle. The difficulty here, and it is huge, is how to distinguish refugees from combatants if you invade. And avoiding the deaths of those who don't support the regime. Optics here will set the tone for future interventions. Make every effort to spare the innocent and this will work quicker should there be a next time somewhere else. Fail, and it will be boots every time.
That strategy didn't work when that aged technology was actually modern. Also didn't work when pretty much every country in WW2 attempted it, whether it was the German's to the Brits, the Brits and the US to Germany, German's to Russia, the US to the Japanese, etc. The only "bombing" that ended a war was using nukes.
And the japanese god went on radio and told the world he wasnt god
(03-23-2026 12:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Already seeing the coping coming for troops on the ground.
Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The people don't have the weapons to fight the regime, and the air strikes are keeping them sheltered because they are afraid of going outside and dying from a strike. It is a no win situation for the Iranian people.
I'm with NG though, I think it would be a terrible mistake to put troops on the ground. I also think taking out civilian infrastructure would be a HUGE mistake. We'd spend years and trillions trying to rebuild it while another generation of IRGC aligned Iranians are created because of the US making their lives even worse than it was before thanks to no water, no power, etc...
I agree with both of you that it would be a terrible mistake, but again I don't see an offramp to not doing it. I'm operating under some assumptions that I feel very comfortable with.
1. Trump is not agreeing to end this without being able to claim total victory and for it to be believable.
2. Iran is not agreeing to end this without real concessions (at a minimum sanction relief) that would make it pretty much impossible for Trump to claim total victory.
3. Israel has a say in all of this and has very different goals and objectives than we do.
The way you could end this would be basically agreeing to the Nuclear terms the Iranian's were willing to agree to right before the attack, plus sanction relief on top of that, plus Trump making it clear to Israel this is over and if you try to keep going we are going to cut you off completely. In theory none of that is outside of Trump's power to do, but there's no world where Trump would do any of it.
(03-23-2026 01:03 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: Praying it’s a bluff. But if not — yeah that would be a terrible mistake, imho.
I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The only way to avoid boots on the ground in Iran is to position them in the more amenable countries which border Iran and have them create safe zones for refugees from Iran. Drop the leaflets instructing Iranian citizens to one of the safe camps and explain to them that they had 7 days to make preparation and leave.
Then use some wonderfully aged technology to end this. B52 carpet bombing of everything still standing in Iran. Whatever crawls out after that won't be sufficient to put up a struggle. The difficulty here, and it is huge, is how to distinguish refugees from combatants if you invade. And avoiding the deaths of those who don't support the regime. Optics here will set the tone for future interventions. Make every effort to spare the innocent and this will work quicker should there be a next time somewhere else. Fail, and it will be boots every time.
That strategy didn't work when that aged technology was actually modern. Also didn't work when pretty much every country in WW2 attempted it, whether it was the German's to the Brits, the Brits and the US to Germany, German's to Russia, the US to the Japanese, etc. The only "bombing" that ended a war was using nukes.
And the japanese god went on radio and told the world he wasnt god
They can absolutely be bombed into submission.
Ummm yeah that was the nuke part. Traditional bombing was not working and would never have worked.
(03-23-2026 01:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I'm not seeing a path that doesn't lead to troops on the ground and I haven't for a while. The regime is not falling from just air strikes, there is no revolution on the ground coming (and it's always been fantasy that it would happen IMO) and I see no terms either side would actually agree in the near term to that would allow this to end.
The only way to avoid boots on the ground in Iran is to position them in the more amenable countries which border Iran and have them create safe zones for refugees from Iran. Drop the leaflets instructing Iranian citizens to one of the safe camps and explain to them that they had 7 days to make preparation and leave.
Then use some wonderfully aged technology to end this. B52 carpet bombing of everything still standing in Iran. Whatever crawls out after that won't be sufficient to put up a struggle. The difficulty here, and it is huge, is how to distinguish refugees from combatants if you invade. And avoiding the deaths of those who don't support the regime. Optics here will set the tone for future interventions. Make every effort to spare the innocent and this will work quicker should there be a next time somewhere else. Fail, and it will be boots every time.
That strategy didn't work when that aged technology was actually modern. Also didn't work when pretty much every country in WW2 attempted it, whether it was the German's to the Brits, the Brits and the US to Germany, German's to Russia, the US to the Japanese, etc. The only "bombing" that ended a war was using nukes.
And the japanese god went on radio and told the world he wasnt god
They can absolutely be bombed into submission.
Ummm yeah that was the nuke part. Traditional bombing was not working and would never have worked.
lol ... it's now gone full circle back to the original posit after 10/7/23, "are nukes an option against Iran" ...
