Except you clearly are missing the boots on the ground invasion..where the troops? Where the landing craft? You can compare conflicts cause your smooth brain sees middle east war and the us. But iran would be impossible to occupy like iraq or Afghanistan. Much bigger and way more populated and the geography is a nightmare. No one is putting boots in the ground this is a bombing campaign
You think we’re just going to bomb Iran without boots on the ground until they decide they like us and install a favorable regime? Or, failing that, until they pinky swear they have no nuke program and we’ll trust them without verifying it?
They just killed their supreme leader with a bomb lol. They will decapitate the IRGC and make a deal with the secular sides of the gov. Prove me wrong.
You are saying they will kill more of the religious leaders, especially the ones with claims to leadership, and after that, will support secular ones. Do to think the secular leader of the country will have public support, or are they expected to keep the populace in line with military?
Those wars started with bombing campaigns too. Then when that didn't accomplish our "objectives", troops were sent in.
It's always the same shit, and it all comes from the same shit source. People make money by selling weapons and stealing resources in occupied territories. Those people give money to politicians. War is just another way to steal from poor people.
That's all it ever is. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or gullible.
>People make money by selling weapons and stealing resources in occupied territories. Those people give money to politicians.
Yes, to politicians that favour policies that require more weapons and military action. This is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about ~70 years ago.
Air power alone will not be able to provide regime change. Never in the history of warfare has air power been a decisive factor in war aims, especially in toppling governments. If regime change is in fact the goal as stated, boots on the ground are inevitable. See the US bombings of Germany, Operation Rolling Thunder, the US bombings against Japan during the Pacific Campaign, and the German bombings of England as case studies of this. Air power without ground control is a gesture at best.
No. It wasn’t. It took all-domain warfare to put Japan into a position to surrender due to a nuclear strike. More than the nuke, it was the Navy and Marine Corps ability to completely choke supply lines that brought Japan to its knees.
Not really. It was a convergence of factors: unrestricted submarine warfare cutting off nearly all naval shipping, running out of oil, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the annihilation of the Kwangtung Army (which was the hardliner's hope- that the could evacuate enough of the IJA forces in China to make a plausible last stand), and a sufficiency of conservatives deciding that suing for peace gave them better survival odds than fighting to the bitter end (Hirohito was more afraid of the Japanese people rising up than he was of American firepower).
Then either a new Ayatollah is chosen and life carries on as before, or there is much chaos and suffering until a new government is in place, and possibly thereafter.
If there is a new government it may not be an Islamic Republic, but it’s not going to be an American style democracy either. Typically power vacuums are filled by people with weapons.
If either of these scenarios is the outcome, the war will have been a pointless exercise. The US will need to put boots on the ground to validate their conquest, or admit they failed.
Given AIPAC's influence over the American government, I don't think even the removal of Trump would guarantee an end to this. Dems in congress slow-played a war powers resolution vote this week that could have stopped this.
Suggesting that he ended it furthers the false implication that the presidency is disjointed from person to person. Trump said everyone drop everything and leave. No planning. No logistics. It was a process in full swing by the time Biden got there. Biden didn't end it. It was already being terminated. Biden had to manage the situation that was already in motion.
"In order to get elected BarackObama will start a war with Iran" - Trump, Nov 29, 2011
"BarackObama will attack Iran to get re-elected." - Trump, Jan 17, 2012
"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate." - Trump, Oct 9, 2012
"I predict that President Obama will at some point start a war with Iran in order to save face!" - Trump, Sept 16, 2013
"Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!" - Trump, Nov 11, 2013
Did you think that was what he was saying? Or are you looking for some kind of gotcha?
For arguments-sake, let's say Obama was the most war-mongering President of all time. Does that mean we shouldn't have opinions about the next President who starts a war?
It sure looks like you're trying to call "this is hypocracy!" but people were upset at Obama for his drone strikes and use of force at the time. Those same people are upset at this administration. Especially because this administration has a track record of poorly planned and reckless behavior.
But the comment you responded to is all about how this guy has been saying bombing Iran is good for ratings for almost 15 years. Now that his rating are low, he's bombed Iran. Your reply seems to entirely miss the point you were responding to.
Israeli officials were first to announce the war, and said they were working hand in hand with the U.S. The Pentagon called the mission “Operation Epic Fury.”
By 10 a.m. local time, explosions erupted across downtown Tehran, near government buildings, including near Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s compound. According to local reports, explosions were heard near the cities of Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah. U.S. military ordnance arrived by both air and sea, officials told us. They said the U.S. attack would be more extensive than the June strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities.
If you're being honest, its because trump asked israel to attack first. There have been leaks over the last month that the trump administration thinks it looks better politically if israel attacks, then iran counter attacks israel, then the us gets involved to protect israel. Though it seems we didn't even eait for that second step this time.
Can you show proof of those leaks? US has nothing to gain from attacking. Iran is an Israeli enemy and US only by proxy. I dont understand why US pre emption would be necessary. What does US gain?
Literally the first google search i typed. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politics-israel-strikes-iran-00799456
If we continue talking, i request you attempt researching future questions first before requesting me to, as a show of good faith.
To answer your second question about what we stand to gain, Trump killed Obama's nuclear deal with Iran during his first term, as part of his attempts to kill every flagship achievement of the Obama administration. He ran on the idea that the iran deal was bad, and that trump would make a better one. In the meanwhile, Iran has restarted their nuclear program.
Trump failed to make a deal with Iran in his first term, and he has failed again in this term. Iran finds him to be untrustworthy and not worth making a deal with, as Trumps action appear to mean he cannot be trusted to ever keep his side of any agreement.
As a result negotiations with Iran broke down a week or so ago. So Trump waited for the Olympics to end, and then the markets to close Friday (allowing his insiders but not the public to make off hours market), and then he began using the military to punish iran for not making a deal with him.
So what will they gain? What does the US get after punishing Iran? Satisfaction? Feeling of superiority? What do the US taxpayers gain that is tangible? (Aside from higher gas prices, new generation of further radicalized world youths, and a few billion dollar in additional debt?)
Yes this is partly deflection. But fatty also started a war with Iran because Netty told him to. Netty says roll over and fatty complies. Remember Mossad gathered all kinds of nasty dirt on fatty at honeypot island.
Seems like the biggest problems already got solved a while ago. The Congress is in charge of taxation, including tariffs, and also starting wars. All we need to do is enforce the laws in the spirit in which they were written.
Something tells me it just may be a bit early to assume there are large scale efforts to have hearts, flowers and parades being readied for the liberators just yet.
The Atlantic now has a “we’re working on it page” splashing after a second or two of the article’s front page. Too much traffic or deliberate censorship?
The MIC makes money in times of war. They will ensure there are wars brewing somewhere and donate (bribe) to every major political campaign to make sure politicians vote for those wars.
CheesyPotatoSack | a day ago
When we get rid of Trump and release all the Epstein files
eraserhd | a day ago
No. Given Iraq and Afghanistan, at least 20 years.
Living_Cash1037 | a day ago
No one is occupying the place. This isnt the same type of war.
eraserhd | a day ago
Oh? This is just a killin’ and creatin’ a power vacuum sort of deal?
Living_Cash1037 | a day ago
Yeah probably attempt regime change if they can, render them not a military threat after if they cant.
eraserhd | a day ago
So … Iraq and Afghanistan.
Living_Cash1037 | a day ago
Except you clearly are missing the boots on the ground invasion..where the troops? Where the landing craft? You can compare conflicts cause your smooth brain sees middle east war and the us. But iran would be impossible to occupy like iraq or Afghanistan. Much bigger and way more populated and the geography is a nightmare. No one is putting boots in the ground this is a bombing campaign
eraserhd | a day ago
You think we’re just going to bomb Iran without boots on the ground until they decide they like us and install a favorable regime? Or, failing that, until they pinky swear they have no nuke program and we’ll trust them without verifying it?
Living_Cash1037 | 22 hours ago
They just killed their supreme leader with a bomb lol. They will decapitate the IRGC and make a deal with the secular sides of the gov. Prove me wrong.
eraserhd | 22 hours ago
You are saying they will kill more of the religious leaders, especially the ones with claims to leadership, and after that, will support secular ones. Do to think the secular leader of the country will have public support, or are they expected to keep the populace in line with military?
terran_cell | a day ago
You have no idea how much actual Iranians hate the Islamic regime, do you?
eraserhd | a day ago
As much as Iraqis hated Saddam?
sharp11flat13 | 17 hours ago
The surest way to convince a country that it needs nuclear weapons is to attack them.
CeruleanEidolon | a day ago
Yet.
Those wars started with bombing campaigns too. Then when that didn't accomplish our "objectives", troops were sent in.
It's always the same shit, and it all comes from the same shit source. People make money by selling weapons and stealing resources in occupied territories. Those people give money to politicians. War is just another way to steal from poor people.
That's all it ever is. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or gullible.
sharp11flat13 | 17 hours ago
>People make money by selling weapons and stealing resources in occupied territories. Those people give money to politicians.
Yes, to politicians that favour policies that require more weapons and military action. This is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about ~70 years ago.
Living_Cash1037 | 16 hours ago
Tell me when they start actually moving assets for a ground invasion.
Sayakai | 9 hours ago
I don't know, this looks more like a Syria than an Iraq.
Think_Dare_6605 | 20 hours ago
Exactly
sighborg90 | a day ago
Air power alone will not be able to provide regime change. Never in the history of warfare has air power been a decisive factor in war aims, especially in toppling governments. If regime change is in fact the goal as stated, boots on the ground are inevitable. See the US bombings of Germany, Operation Rolling Thunder, the US bombings against Japan during the Pacific Campaign, and the German bombings of England as case studies of this. Air power without ground control is a gesture at best.
airwalker12 | 22 hours ago
Japan WW2 was toppled from the air
sighborg90 | 21 hours ago
No. It wasn’t. It took all-domain warfare to put Japan into a position to surrender due to a nuclear strike. More than the nuke, it was the Navy and Marine Corps ability to completely choke supply lines that brought Japan to its knees.
LeRoienJaune | 21 hours ago
Not really. It was a convergence of factors: unrestricted submarine warfare cutting off nearly all naval shipping, running out of oil, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the annihilation of the Kwangtung Army (which was the hardliner's hope- that the could evacuate enough of the IJA forces in China to make a plausible last stand), and a sufficiency of conservatives deciding that suing for peace gave them better survival odds than fighting to the bitter end (Hirohito was more afraid of the Japanese people rising up than he was of American firepower).
BigSoda | 22 hours ago
After years of incredibly bloody ground combat through the perimeter defense islands
Living_Cash1037 | 22 hours ago
They just killed their supreme leader with a bomb.
sighborg90 | 22 hours ago
Not regime change.
Living_Cash1037 | 17 hours ago
Remind me in a week or so
Professional_Feisty | 22 hours ago
Give it a day
sharp11flat13 | 18 hours ago
Then either a new Ayatollah is chosen and life carries on as before, or there is much chaos and suffering until a new government is in place, and possibly thereafter.
If there is a new government it may not be an Islamic Republic, but it’s not going to be an American style democracy either. Typically power vacuums are filled by people with weapons.
If either of these scenarios is the outcome, the war will have been a pointless exercise. The US will need to put boots on the ground to validate their conquest, or admit they failed.
Edit: added missing word
JonnyAU | a day ago
Given AIPAC's influence over the American government, I don't think even the removal of Trump would guarantee an end to this. Dems in congress slow-played a war powers resolution vote this week that could have stopped this.
CHSummers | 23 hours ago
Or, to put it differently, the national emergency must continue until Trump has “won” the next election and feels safe.
terran_cell | a day ago
When the Iranian people seize the opportunity to topple the IR and get their nation’s freedom back.
bobrobor | a day ago
Wait, there was no war under Obama or Biden right?
Dichotomouse | a day ago
Biden ended the Afghanistan war within months of taking office and didn't start any new ones.
makemeking706 | a day ago
He was following through on the unplanned decisions that Trump made.
Dichotomouse | a day ago
Okay, and?
makemeking706 | a day ago
Suggesting that he ended it furthers the false implication that the presidency is disjointed from person to person. Trump said everyone drop everything and leave. No planning. No logistics. It was a process in full swing by the time Biden got there. Biden didn't end it. It was already being terminated. Biden had to manage the situation that was already in motion.
bobrobor | a day ago
And what about Obama?
Dichotomouse | a day ago
Ended Iraq war, but bombed Libya. Many people would consider that starting a new conflict.
bobrobor | a day ago
Yes they would
twoinvenice | a day ago
"In order to get elected BarackObama will start a war with Iran" - Trump, Nov 29, 2011
"BarackObama will attack Iran to get re-elected." - Trump, Jan 17, 2012
"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate." - Trump, Oct 9, 2012
"I predict that President Obama will at some point start a war with Iran in order to save face!" - Trump, Sept 16, 2013
"Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!" - Trump, Nov 11, 2013
bobrobor | a day ago
So you are saying Obama didnt fight any wars?
twoinvenice | a day ago
Is Obama the current president?
Is Obama currently causing a conflict?
Is Obama starting a war to try to distract people from talking about the Epstein files?
Ah, right Trump is the answer to all those questions, so kindly shut the fuck up with your tired whataboutism
bobrobor | a day ago
Whataboutism is yours. You are deflecting decades of problems that led to today onto a single patsy. Clever. But not everyone is brain dead.
twoinvenice | a day ago
Lol, ok clown
bobrobor | a day ago
They call me Joker, sir.
nikc4 | a day ago
> Whataboutism is yours.
"I know you are but what am I?"
Grow up.
bobrobor | a day ago
Don’t we all wish we were young? Ignorance is bliss
nikc4 | a day ago
> Ignorance is bliss
I appreciate your expert opinion lol
bobrobor | a day ago
Someone had to have some
jesseaknight | a day ago
Did you think that was what he was saying? Or are you looking for some kind of gotcha?
For arguments-sake, let's say Obama was the most war-mongering President of all time. Does that mean we shouldn't have opinions about the next President who starts a war?
It sure looks like you're trying to call "this is hypocracy!" but people were upset at Obama for his drone strikes and use of force at the time. Those same people are upset at this administration. Especially because this administration has a track record of poorly planned and reckless behavior.
bobrobor | a day ago
That is my point. We should be upset every time it happens . Sadly war is a unifying mode for both parties.
jesseaknight | a day ago
But the comment you responded to is all about how this guy has been saying bombing Iran is good for ratings for almost 15 years. Now that his rating are low, he's bombed Iran. Your reply seems to entirely miss the point you were responding to.
bobrobor | a day ago
No the point you missed is that the guy is a hypocrite. And all I am saying is they all are.
sharp11flat13 | 17 hours ago
They’re not in office now so I fail to see how that is relevant to this conversation.
PsyX99 | a day ago
You'll be sad when Trump die and his replace by a guy far worse that is not in the papers.
[OP] D-R-AZ | a day ago
Gifted Read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/02/trump-war-iran-allies-supreme-leader/686189/?gift=9raHaW-OKg2bN8oaIFlCokRuoWFd_3k1CB9BIoaIqmA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Excerpts:
Israeli officials were first to announce the war, and said they were working hand in hand with the U.S. The Pentagon called the mission “Operation Epic Fury.”
By 10 a.m. local time, explosions erupted across downtown Tehran, near government buildings, including near Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s compound. According to local reports, explosions were heard near the cities of Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah. U.S. military ordnance arrived by both air and sea, officials told us. They said the U.S. attack would be more extensive than the June strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities.
tongmengjia | a day ago
Operation Epic Fury. Brought to you by Google Gemini in collaboration with Mountain Dew.
Oncemor-intothebeach | a day ago
Don’t be stupid, this one is sponsored by Brondo & Carls Jr
dust4ngel | a day ago
welcome to WW3, i love you
89bBomUNiZhLkdXDpCwt | 23 hours ago
Brawndo, it’s got what plants crave!
Special_FX_B | a day ago
Some people wonder why more Americans are becoming anti-Israel.
CHSummers | 23 hours ago
Israel brought that on themselves. Their “war on terrorism” resulted in executions of small children. BBC News: a pattern of children being shot in the head and chest, execution-style.
Special_FX_B | 19 hours ago
I am not one of those people. Blatant genocide is not good no matter how it is spun.
bobrobor | a day ago
So this is not a US war but an Israeli one?
Background-War9535 | a day ago
More like a war so Trump can look like a big strong man who never went to Epstein Island.
snertwith2ls | 15 hours ago
He's gotta be making money from it somehow
bobrobor | a day ago
But he didn’t start the war right? Wasnt it Israel? So you are saying Israel is helping him look like a big strong man? Why would they do that?
ep1032 | a day ago
If you're being honest, its because trump asked israel to attack first. There have been leaks over the last month that the trump administration thinks it looks better politically if israel attacks, then iran counter attacks israel, then the us gets involved to protect israel. Though it seems we didn't even eait for that second step this time.
bobrobor | a day ago
Can you show proof of those leaks? US has nothing to gain from attacking. Iran is an Israeli enemy and US only by proxy. I dont understand why US pre emption would be necessary. What does US gain?
ep1032 | a day ago
Literally the first google search i typed. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politics-israel-strikes-iran-00799456
If we continue talking, i request you attempt researching future questions first before requesting me to, as a show of good faith.
To answer your second question about what we stand to gain, Trump killed Obama's nuclear deal with Iran during his first term, as part of his attempts to kill every flagship achievement of the Obama administration. He ran on the idea that the iran deal was bad, and that trump would make a better one. In the meanwhile, Iran has restarted their nuclear program.
Trump failed to make a deal with Iran in his first term, and he has failed again in this term. Iran finds him to be untrustworthy and not worth making a deal with, as Trumps action appear to mean he cannot be trusted to ever keep his side of any agreement.
As a result negotiations with Iran broke down a week or so ago. So Trump waited for the Olympics to end, and then the markets to close Friday (allowing his insiders but not the public to make off hours market), and then he began using the military to punish iran for not making a deal with him.
bobrobor | a day ago
You didnt tell me what the US will gain from this
ep1032 | 21 hours ago
> negotiations with Iran broke down a week or so ago. So Trump [sic] began using the military to punish iran for not making a deal with him.
bobrobor | 21 hours ago
So what will they gain? What does the US get after punishing Iran? Satisfaction? Feeling of superiority? What do the US taxpayers gain that is tangible? (Aside from higher gas prices, new generation of further radicalized world youths, and a few billion dollar in additional debt?)
Euphoric_Ad9593 | a day ago
Yes this is partly deflection. But fatty also started a war with Iran because Netty told him to. Netty says roll over and fatty complies. Remember Mossad gathered all kinds of nasty dirt on fatty at honeypot island.
jefferson497 | a day ago
Tell me again about the Nobel Peace Prize
Leo080671 | a day ago
When the Americans get rid of the orange man!
Big-Association-7485 | a day ago
When people stop talking about Epstein
One-Consequence-6869 | a day ago
Monday after they have sold out the oil futures
m0llusk | a day ago
Seems like the biggest problems already got solved a while ago. The Congress is in charge of taxation, including tariffs, and also starting wars. All we need to do is enforce the laws in the spirit in which they were written.
speedle62 | 23 hours ago
What on earth are you talking about? Congress is MIA, and showing no signs of stepping up against the orange menace. What are these solved problems?
ABobby077 | a day ago
Something tells me it just may be a bit early to assume there are large scale efforts to have hearts, flowers and parades being readied for the liberators just yet.
khkhkh1 | a day ago
When trump is not president.
Septopuss7 | 20 hours ago
No New Wars, starting now (not including this war)
maxplanar | a day ago
With the release of the Epstein files?
GreyBeardEng | a day ago
It ends with impeachment
brett- | a day ago
Ah yes, the process that has not successfully worked once in the past 250 years. Let's rely on that!
ToTheTop24 | a day ago
When FIFA gives the orange one another “Peace Prize”
Daleaturner | a day ago
Look to Afghanistan.
mel_cache | 22 hours ago
The Atlantic now has a “we’re working on it page” splashing after a second or two of the article’s front page. Too much traffic or deliberate censorship?
Delicious-Desk-6627 | 17 hours ago
In glass
Beanyurza | 14 hours ago
It doesn't.
The MIC makes money in times of war. They will ensure there are wars brewing somewhere and donate (bribe) to every major political campaign to make sure politicians vote for those wars.
lavastorm | a day ago
when Palestine is free
LawrenceSpivey | a day ago
When the Middle East is turned into glass.