A Revolution Could Soon Be Under Way in Iran

[jt512]

Even though Trump assured us that he had obliterated Iran's weapons capability in June 2025?

Experts Agree: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated

From nuclear regulators to foreign policy experts to members of the intelligence community, every knowledgeable person is in agreement that President

www.whitehouse.gov

Try and keep up. I have already clarified that I was referring to the state of the Iranian nuclear program before the joint attacks of June 2025.

 

[angrysoba]

Try and keep up. I have already clarified that I was referring to the state of the Iranian nuclear program before the joint attacks of June 2025.

Sure, but what about the state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program before Trump withdrew from the JCPOA?

 

[LSSBB]

Where did I say that? Overwhelming force doesn't necessitate nukes.

That's the overwhelming force used in your example of Japan.

 

[arthwollipot]

Try and keep up. I have already clarified that I was referring to the state of the Iranian nuclear program before the joint attacks of June 2025.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's the overwhelming force used in your example of Japan.

Mmm... that's the overwhelming force that was available to us in WW2, against a well-armed near-peer country. We have many different and extremely effective means of overwhelming force now, and Iran is not a near-peer.

It would, however, be messy. And most likely it would cause a large number of civilian casualties, and I really don't wish that on the Persians who are subjugated by their government. I just don't have much hope that negotiation can be successful.

And as much bad as there is to say about Trump, I'm not displeased with their tactics in Iran. I'd have preferred that the conflict was never needed in the first place, but I think it's being handled as humanely as it reasonably can be. There's plenty to berate Trump about... but in this conflict they've consistently engaged in short, highly targeted bursts of conflict followed by a pull back and a return to negotiation. Once this war began, it's been extremely tit-for-tat: Iran aggresses in an unacceptable way, and the US responds quickly with immense force directed at well-indicated targets. Despite Iran launching many of their strikes from densely populated areas. It undoubtedly irks some of you to even consider this, but Trump has essentially minimized civilian harm and maximized time at negotiations.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Where did I say that? Overwhelming force doesn't necessitate nukes.

No, securing the nuclear material always required boots on the ground, lots of.
Every analyst, military or otherwise, agreed, and events have proven them right.

A bombing campaign, no matter how intensive, was never going to do more than create delay, uncertainty - and an iron will to see the project done to prevent further attacks.

Once again, anyone who thinks Iran was attacked because of its nuclear program is a convenient guilible pawn.

 

[LSSBB]

No, securing the nuclear material always required boots on the ground, lots of.
Every analyst, military or otherwise, agreed, and events have proven them right.

A bombing campaign, no matter how intensive, was never going to do more than create delay, uncertainty - and an iron will to see the project done to prevent further attacks.

Once again, anyone who thinks Iran was attacked because of its nuclear program is a convenient guilible pawn.

That is precisely it. That is the lesson of history.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Mmm... that's the overwhelming force that was available to us in WW2, against a well-armed near-peer country. We have many different and extremely effective means of overwhelming force now, and Iran is not a near-peer.

It would, however, be messy. And most likely it would cause a large number of civilian casualties, and I really don't wish that on the Persians who are subjugated by their government. I just don't have much hope that negotiation can be successful.

And as much bad as there is to say about Trump, I'm not displeased with their tactics in Iran. I'd have preferred that the conflict was never needed in the first place, but I think it's being handled as humanely as it reasonably can be. There's plenty to berate Trump about... but in this conflict they've consistently engaged in short, highly targeted bursts of conflict followed by a pull back and a return to negotiation. Once this war began, it's been extremely tit-for-tat: Iran aggresses in an unacceptable way, and the US responds quickly with immense force directed at well-indicated targets. Despite Iran launching many of their strikes from densely populated areas. It undoubtedly irks some of you to even consider this, but Trump has essentially minimized civilian harm and maximized time at negotiations.

That's an interesting take on the conflict.
It also neatly ignores the fact that Iran and the US were in the middle of negotiations when the US and Israel decided to assassinate the negotiators and Iranian leadership, and then calling it 'aggression' when Iran retaliated in the way predicted by everyone but the 'warriors' in charge of the US.