Support NeoGAF

[Sybrix]

Simply ceasing to conduct military offensive action whenever the US decides to was always the 'out'.

If the USA ceases military action now, they have changed nothing and won nothing, they lost.

No way Trump is doing that.

 

[jason10mm]

The USA cannot defeat Iran by bombing alone so they are making statements that "They want a deal!" "They want a ceasefire!"- but Iran are constantly stating this is bullshit and won't reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Incorrect. We ABSOLUTELY could reduce Iran to a largely unsurvivable state through bombing alone, but we are not "allowed" to use our full range of (non-nuclear) capabilities. While the government of Iran can attack whomever they want, HOWEVER they can, civilian casualties all excused, the US is held to an almost impossibly high standard of immense precision and ZERO collateral damage and not holding the country of Iran responsible for their own government and military actions. We could use their own tactics against them, or at least levy punishment for certain actions that would render Iran a largely non-viable place to live, but despite not having a viable military counterweight that could FORCE us to not do it, we are CHOOSING to restrain ourselves. It's an important distinction, however unlikely it is that the US would just take off the kid gloves and really go to war. Our kindness is what allows these things to continue to happen and the burden fall on others, not the Iranians causing it in the first place.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

It's funny seeing the posts acting like Iran has somehow won despite taking 20,000 or so direct strikes on targets and a whole level of its leadership wiped out, and the current leadership is only there because USA asked them to be on a no-kill list.

No one is saying Iran has won, or that they haven't had a ton of their shit blown up and their people killed. What they're saying is dropping bombs on people doesn't always result in a better future and a more stable country. The war hasn't achieved that, and it's not clear at this point how it will.

 

[ADiTAR]

It's funny seeing the posts acting like Iran has somehow won despite taking 20,000 or so direct strikes on targets and a whole level of its leadership wiped out, and the current leadership is only there because USA asked them to be on a no-kill list.

Did the regime survive? Can they still launch missiles? Are they still able to develop nuclear weapons?

Right now the answer to all of these is a resounding yes. So yeah, that's a win. Hezbollah and Hamas also were bombed heavily, but are still alive, to me it means they won.

It's weak leaders who can't make the tough decisions.

 

[Sybrix]

Incorrect. We ABSOLUTELY could reduce Iran to a largely unsurvivable state through bombing alone, but we are not "allowed" to use our full range of (non-nuclear) capabilities. While the government of Iran can attack whomever they want, HOWEVER they can, civilian casualties all excused, the US is held to an almost impossibly high standard of immense precision and ZERO collateral damage and not holding the country of Iran responsible for their own government and military actions. We could use their own tactics against them, or at least levy punishment for certain actions that would render Iran a largely non-viable place to live, but despite not having a viable military counterweight that could FORCE us to not do it, we are CHOOSING to restrain ourselves. It's an important distinction, however unlikely it is that the US would just take off the kid gloves and really go to war. Our kindness is what allows these things to continue to happen and the burden fall on others, not the Iranians causing it in the first place.

Bombing a country to the stone age alone wouldn't achive a regime change in Iran.

At the start of this war the USA told the Iranians to rise up and now is their time to take control. They haven't and can't. Unleasing Dresden levels of destruction on Iranian cities would destory any sort of resistance group(s).

 

[Jaybe]

If the USA ceases military action now, they have changed nothing and won nothing, they lost.

No way Trump is doing that.

USA and Israel have smashed the fuck out of Iran's military and industry easily setting back their nuclear and ballistic missiles capabilities and potential. That's a win. The news goes crazy any time some debris fall in a guy in UAE but seems to fail to proportionally cover that there are 300 to 500 damaging strikes to Iran every night since this has began. I guess the routine is not newsworthy to them.

 

[Sybrix]

USA and Israel have smashed the fuck out of Iran's military and industry easily setting back their nuclear and ballistic missiles capabilities and potential. That's a win. The news goes crazy any time some debris fall in a guy in UAE but seems to fail to proportionally cover that there are 300 to 500 damaging strikes to Iran every night since this has began. I guess the routine is not newsworthy to them.

Don't disagree, however this war was about regime change and still should be, if the USA leaves now and Iran is left in the current situation Iran will rebuild and in 10-20 years time they become the same problem again, and during that time all the terrorist proxies they fund will continue to be funded and cause the same chaos they cause now.

They'll also be planning how to retaliate against the USA for killing their supreame leader. These religious fanatics ain't letting that one go and never will until they see "Justice" in their eyes. - Is the USA wise to leave that timebomb ticking?

 

[jason10mm]

Bombing a country to the stone age alone wouldn't achive a regime change in Iran.

At the start of this war the USA told the Iranians to rise up and now is their time to take control. They haven't and can't. Unleasing Dresden levels of destruction on Iranian cities would destory any sort of resistance group(s).

If Iran is simply removed from the global stage, that's basically the same functional outcome as a "friendly" regime change. I've no desire to see millions of Iranians die of dehydration, disease, starvation, or war but if they can't wrest themselves from their aggressive death spiral then mayhaps they can serve as a sacrificial lesson to others. It's not like they haven't been poking the bear for DECADES now in the name of their zealotry.

Sadly I think catastrophic global conflict is basically inevitable unless we can hold off for the next 20-30 years and micro-plastics drop the birth rate to the point where we can ease off on resource competition and AI labor steps in to fill the void. But even that won't help the teeming masses of low tech/industrialized countries, where AI is probably gonna FUCK as the need for low skilled labor vanishes almost overnight and suddenly places relapse to the population levels sustainable on the dirt that there (news flash, it's a fraction of the population living there now).

 

[Smiggs]

If Iran is simply removed from the global stage, that's basically the same functional outcome as a "friendly" regime change. I've no desire to see millions of Iranians die of dehydration, disease, starvation, or war but if they can't wrest themselves from their aggressive death spiral then mayhaps they can serve as a sacrificial lesson to others. It's not like they haven't been poking the bear for DECADES now in the name of their zealotry.

Sadly I think catastrophic global conflict is basically inevitable unless we can hold off for the next 20-30 years and micro-plastics drop the birth rate to the point where we can ease off on resource competition and AI labor steps in to fill the void. But even that won't help the teeming masses of low tech/industrialized countries, where AI is probably gonna FUCK as the need for low skilled labor vanishes almost overnight and suddenly places relapse to the population levels sustainable on the dirt that there (news flash, it's a fraction of the population living there now).

Dude, I'm sorry, but that is beyond fucked up. You think nearly 100 million people dying is somehow a viable teaching moment for the global community?! Please tell me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

If Iran is simply removed from the global stage, that's basically the same functional outcome as a "friendly" regime change. I've no desire to see millions of Iranians die of dehydration, disease, starvation, or war but if they can't wrest themselves from their aggressive death spiral then mayhaps they can serve as a sacrificial lesson to others. It's not like they haven't been poking the bear for DECADES now in the name of their zealotry.

Sadly I think catastrophic global conflict is basically inevitable unless we can hold off for the next 20-30 years and micro-plastics drop the birth rate to the point where we can ease off on resource competition and AI labor steps in to fill the void. But even that won't help the teeming masses of low tech/industrialized countries, where AI is probably gonna FUCK as the need for low skilled labor vanishes almost overnight and suddenly places relapse to the population levels sustainable on the dirt that there (news flash, it's a fraction of the population living there now).

I have to be honest, I'm kind of surprised to be reading a post suggesting there should be a mass killing of close to a hundred million innocent people as a sacrifice to stand as a warning to others.

I mean, that does sound kind of like something the bad guys say, yes?

 

[Jaybe]

Don't disagree, however this war was about regime change and still should be, if the USA leaves now and Iran is left in the current situation Iran will rebuild and in 10-20 years time they become the same problem again, and during that time all the terrorist proxies they fund will continue to be funded and cause the same chaos they cause now.

They'll also be planning how to retaliate against the USA for killing their supreame leader. These religious fanatics ain't letting that one go and never will until they see "Justice" in their eyes. - Is the USA wise to leave that timebomb ticking?

Agree with you on regime change being most desired and the best end state. Better than having to 'mow the lawn' later with subsequent bombing especially since a future American leadership may not always have the stones to even do that. I really hope this administration does finish the job. I feel like time is actually on USA's side but they are looking for reasons to rush an end to it.

 

[calico]

they have changed nothing and won nothing, they lost.

Vanishingly unlikely they 'changed nothing' with weeks of almost uncontested air supremacy.

At the start of this war the USA told the Iranians to rise up and now is their time to take control. They haven't and can't.

What about it? This was a side quest, not the point of the exercise.

 

[Vestal]

Agree with you on regime change being most desired and the best end state. Better than having to 'mow the lawn' later with subsequent bombing especially since a future American leadership may not always have the stones to even do that. I really hope this administration does finish the job. I feel like time is actually on USA's side but they are looking for reasons to rush an end to it.

Who's going to pay for what you are advocating for? Have you seen the size, and geography of Iran?

 

[Sybrix]

Agree with you on regime change being most desired and the best end state. Better than having to 'mow the lawn' later with subsequent bombing especially since a future American leadership may not always have the stones to even do that. I really hope this administration does finish the job. I feel like time is actually on USA's side but they are looking for reasons to rush an end to it.

The rush to end it is because it's fucking the world economy.

 

[Sybrix]

Vanishingly unlikely they 'changed nothing' with weeks of almost uncontested air supremacy.


What about it? This was a side quest, not the point of the exercise.

It means nothing if the same country and regime exists after the USA leave. Bombing these fanatics all day every day will kill lots of them, but there will be replacements and the same regime and ideology will still be present, it's not a win.

The point was to get rid of these hardline Islamisits that threaten the middle east and the west.

 

[Tams]

The rush to end it is because it's fucking the world economy.

The rest of world bellyache but do nothing about it.

TACO he may be, but Trump is at least doing something.

 

[adamsapple]

If Iran is simply removed from the global stage, that's basically the same functional outcome as a "friendly" regime change. I've no desire to see millions of Iranians die of dehydration, disease, starvation, or war but if they can't wrest themselves from their aggressive death spiral then mayhaps they can serve as a sacrificial lesson to others.

Advocation of casual genocide was not something I expected to read today.

I sincerely hope you are never put in any position to make decisions for other people, holy fucking shit.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

It's WW3 - isn't it?
Wow! I'm really looking forward to this! And just when I finally found a new girlfriend...

Of course we are already in the WW3.

 

[calico]

It means nothing if the same country and regime exists after the USA leave. Bombing these fanatics all day every day will kill lots of them, but there will be replacements and the same regime and ideology will still be present, it's not a win.

The point was to get rid of these hardline Islamisits that threaten the middle east and the west.

The point was to avoid them acquiring nuclear weapons (this is likely more difficult when you are left ruling over a pile of rubble). Also to administer a lesson about the cost of non-compliance in the future.

A domestic overthrow of the regime would have been great, because it may have avoided the need to sporadically repeat the exercise in the future, but it does not determine whether the military action was worthwhile. For all of Iran's bluster about sinking carriers etc, if the cost of 'mowing the lawn' is as light as it has been so far for the US, it's no great hardship to repeat the process in the future if necessary.

 

[Sybrix]

The rest of world bellyache but do nothing about it.

TACO he may be, but Trump is at least doing something.

I remember when the rest of the world came to aid the USA after 9/11.

Did Trump give pre warning of his military intentions to the rest of the world? No.

Is it bellyaching if Trump now wants help after kicking the hornets nest?

 

[jason10mm]

Dude, I'm sorry, but that is beyond fucked up. You think nearly 100 million people dying is somehow a viable teaching moment for the global community?! Please tell me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

How long do you think it would take for Iran to 'learn' the lesson and stop attacking neutral shipping in the strait, stop sending random missiles all over the place, and to stop killing their own citizens? You seem to believe Iran is a little child, incapable of behaving in a civilized fashion, yet is also above rebuke and punishment, and also incapable of learning to cooperate and enter the global stage as a competent and agreeable actor.

Iran is spamming their "nuclear option" button, which is choking a waterway that happens to run next to them, as hard and as fast as they can. This is causing a massive downstream effect on countries totally unrelated to any of Irans affairs. Yet you seem to think the US should not retaliate in a fashion that can actually modify Irans behavior, or at least render them incapable of action regardless of their intent. Your only 'solution' is to capitulate to Iran, refuse to address them directly, and just hope they mature in time?

Nay, I say. Give them a list of consequences for any action. Then follow through with it. I suspect they will need a single lesson, and that only because they don't actually believe the punishment will happen.

Otherwise the only other viable options are capitulation (and hope that they open up the channel); defer action to others who then will have to decide how aggressive to be with Iran; or to just slog on, striking any and all leaders, slowly eroding the Iranian industrial capacity, and ultimately probably killing more Iranians in that fashion than a single direct display of force. A few years of this, with millions of Iranians dead and millions more across the globe due to energy restrictions, and then you can say "wow, if only we could have decisively resolved this back in April 2026 by just using proper discipline".

 

[jason10mm]

Advocation of casual genocide was not something I expected to read today.

I sincerely hope you are never put in any position to make decisions for other people, holy fucking shit.

War is hell, no question. I hope your misbegotten sympathies go to all the folks who will die due to tepid half-measures and insufficient resolve once course becomes clear. And remember, all Iran has to do to end it all is stop attacking NEUTRAL shipping. and sending missiles at random to everyone around them. That's it. It's almost as if throwing a temper tantrum can be stopped by a single spank on the bottom versus letting the child rampage across the entire store, destroying everything.

 

[Tams]

I remember when the rest of the world came to aid the USA after 9/11.

Did Trump give pre warning of his military intentions to the rest of the world? No.

Is it bellyaching if Trump now wants help after kicking the hornets nest?

It was telegraphed from fucking miles off.


As for the response to 9/11, most of the world did nothing.

Yes, some countries proportionally contributed more than the US. For all of them, there were countries which refused to have their soldiers go out of their bases even in the safer parts of Afghanistan.

 

[adamsapple]

Nay, I say. Give them a list of consequences for any action. Then follow through with it. I suspect they will need a single lesson, and that only because they don't actually believe the punishment will happen.

You've lost your mind, friend.

 

[ProtoByte]

Did Trump give pre warning of his military intentions to the rest of the world? No.

Why the fuck would he? He can't take a shit in the Pentagon bathrooms without the press writing a story about it. Any serious country's military intelligence shouldn't need to be told that Iran is an issue that would need solving.

Btw J jason10mm the better less destructive option is a ground invasion. I understand the discourse is heated, but let's not get too crazy.

 

[jason10mm]

I have to be honest, I'm kind of surprised to be reading a post suggesting there should be a mass killing of close to a hundred million innocent people as a sacrifice to stand as a warning to others.

I mean, that does sound kind of like something the bad guys say, yes?

I'm not saying the US should wipe out Iran. But what we SHOULD do is give them consequences to their actions. And those consequences should be sufficient to modify behavior or prevent future misbehavior. Once it comes to kinetic action, how else, exactly, should the strategic geniuses here conduct their war? "tit for tat" in a "you sink a tanker, we blow up a headquarters" doesn't seem effective nor proportionate. I'm sure there is plenty of high dollar real estate that can be removed that will affect the elites in control without severely impacting the rest of the population. That population, mind you, which is supposedly 90% AGAINST their own government. So now that they are getting the aid they called out for, might be the time to start taking back their land and declaring it. I'm sure we'd rather be dropping bombs on tank columns than empty buildings.

 

[jason10mm]

Why the fuck would he? He can't take a shit in the Pentagon bathrooms without the press writing a story about it. Any serious country's military intelligence shouldn't need to be told that Iran is an issue that would need solving.

Btw J jason10mm the better less destructive option is a ground invasion. I understand the discourse is heated, but let's not get too crazy.

whaaaa? It'd be invading Japan all over again. Stacks of friendly troop casualties fighting in difficult terrain, rooting out the enemy, and supply disruptions alone would massacre the civilians. In no way would "boots on the ground" be less damaging than a strong strike that can not be resisted.

 

[Smiggs]

How long do you think it would take for Iran to 'learn' the lesson and stop attacking neutral shipping in the strait, stop sending random missiles all over the place, and to stop killing their own citizens? You seem to believe Iran is a little child, incapable of behaving in a civilized fashion, yet is also above rebuke and punishment, and also incapable of learning to cooperate and enter the global stage as a competent and agreeable actor.

Iran is spamming their "nuclear option" button, which is choking a waterway that happens to run next to them, as hard and as fast as they can. This is causing a massive downstream effect on countries totally unrelated to any of Irans affairs. Yet you seem to think the US should not retaliate in a fashion that can actually modify Irans behavior, or at least render them incapable of action regardless of their intent. Your only 'solution' is to capitulate to Iran, refuse to address them directly, and just hope they mature in time?

Nay, I say. Give them a list of consequences for any action. Then follow through with it. I suspect they will need a single lesson, and that only because they don't actually believe the punishment will happen.

Otherwise the only other viable options are capitulation (and hope that they open up the channel); defer action to others who then will have to decide how aggressive to be with Iran; or to just slog on, striking any and all leaders, slowly eroding the Iranian industrial capacity, and ultimately probably killing more Iranians in that fashion than a single direct display of force. A few years of this, with millions of Iranians dead and millions more across the globe due to energy restrictions, and then you can say "wow, if only we could have decisively resolved this back in April 2026 by just using proper discipline".

The ends do not justify the means. Murdering nearly a hundred million people just because of the horrible regime that rules them is not the answer. The people DID rise up recently, and as many as 40,000 may have been murdered by that same regime. They have no power to overthrow the corrupt bastards in charge.

I guarantee the vast majority of Iranians just want to live a peaceful life. Killing all of them to prove some asinine point just makes us even worse than them. The good guys don't murder innocent civilians by the millions to make a point, the villains are the ones that do that.

 

[Senua]

How long do you think it would take for Iran to 'learn' the lesson and stop attacking neutral shipping in the strait, stop sending random missiles all over the place, and to stop killing their own citizens? You seem to believe Iran is a little child, incapable of behaving in a civilized fashion, yet is also above rebuke and punishment, and also incapable of learning to cooperate and enter the global stage as a competent and agreeable actor.

Iran is spamming their "nuclear option" button, which is choking a waterway that happens to run next to them, as hard and as fast as they can. This is causing a massive downstream effect on countries totally unrelated to any of Irans affairs. Yet you seem to think the US should not retaliate in a fashion that can actually modify Irans behavior, or at least render them incapable of action regardless of their intent. Your only 'solution' is to capitulate to Iran, refuse to address them directly, and just hope they mature in time?

Nay, I say. Give them a list of consequences for any action. Then follow through with it. I suspect they will need a single lesson, and that only because they don't actually believe the punishment will happen.

Otherwise the only other viable options are capitulation (and hope that they open up the channel); defer action to others who then will have to decide how aggressive to be with Iran; or to just slog on, striking any and all leaders, slowly eroding the Iranian industrial capacity, and ultimately probably killing more Iranians in that fashion than a single direct display of force. A few years of this, with millions of Iranians dead and millions more across the globe due to energy restrictions, and then you can say "wow, if only we could have decisively resolved this back in April 2026 by just using proper discipline".

 

[Bojji]

The ends do not justify the means. Murdering nearly a hundred million people just because of the horrible regime that rules them is not the answer. The people DID rise up recently, and as many as 40,000 may have been murdered by that same regime. They have no power to overthrow the corrupt bastards in charge.

I guarantee the vast majority of Iranians just want to live a peaceful life. Killing all of them to prove some asinine point just makes us even worse than them. The good guys don't murder innocent civilians by the millions to make a point, the villains are the ones that do that.

Yeah, it's not the people of Iran that want to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons, it's the regime.

Regime that kills civilians and rapes women in thousands, how ordinary people with no weapons can win with that? I suspect even Russians would not be so brutal to their own citizens.

 

[Darius87]

The rest of world bellyache but do nothing about it.

TACO he may be, but Trump is at least doing something.

yes, he's destroying world economy.

 

[ProtoByte]

whaaaa? It'd be invading Japan all over again. Stacks of friendly troop casualties fighting in difficult terrain, rooting out the enemy, and supply disruptions alone would massacre the civilians. In no way would "boots on the ground" be less damaging than a strong strike that can not be resisted.

You mean Okinawa. And you wouldn't have to go whole hog and this is very different to 1900s Japan or Japanese territories in almost every way.

As far as I understand it, the main thing is to take Kharg Island. It's never quite this simple, but the rest "falls into place" after that.

What scope of strikes are you talking about? Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[Tams]

yes, he's destroying world economy.

I think you'll find it's Iran attacking the shipping.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Imo just continue to assassinate leaders until one shows up that will negotiate in exchange for not being assassinated. If we had good anti-drone solutions I'd say take Kharg and be done with it, but choking up the strait is Iran's only play and it is one that the US and Israel don't care about that much. Therefore it is not worth Marine lives.

 

[Bojji]

I think you'll find it's Iran attacking the shipping.

They weren't doing that before Trump attacked them.

It's obviously on them in the end but nothing happens in a vacuum.

 

[TheAtomicPile]

They weren't doing that before Trump attacked them.

It's obviously on them in the end but nothing happens in a vacuum.

The Houthis they fund actually have been for years.

 

[jason10mm]

You mean Okinawa. And you wouldn't have to go whole hog and this is very different to 1900s Japan or Japanese territories in almost every way.

As far as I understand it, the main thing is to take Kharg Island. It's never quite this simple, but the rest "falls into place" after that.

What scope of strikes are you talking about? Maybe I misunderstood.

No, I mean the estimated casualties of invading Japan (mainland) as the rationale for the atomic bombs to make it UNDENIABLE that resistance was futile and capitulation was the only option.

Personally I think FPV drones have made infantry operations largely untenable. It's a military revolution that renders a lot of previous tactics obsolete. Troops on Kharg island would be inundated with them and some level of 'sterilization' of the coastal regions of Iran would be necessary regardless. So in response to FPV drone utilization, rather than learn the (or fail to learn it from Russia v Ukraine) lesson through the deaths of thousands upon thousands of troops, the real "new" strategy, for those who can employ it, is back to WW2 levels of bombings to so reduce conditions and industrial capacity that the targeted country is simply UNABLE to resist, regardless of desire to do so, and would have no targets to hit with their reduced capacity anyway.

Iran is well aware that they are surrounded by potential enemies who would like nothing more than to consume them. So they MUST retain some level of defensive capability, thus they will capitulate towards the US, a nation they KNOW is largely benevolent and would likely pay to rebuild everything damaged out of guilt and some wistful hope of closer relations anyway, rather than get ground down so much that their neighbors come and take a piece.

 

[Bojji]

The Houthis they fund actually have been for years.

But they didn't close the strait or disrupt flow of oil. They also operate in completely different place.

They captured one ship over the years, I read?

 

[adamsapple]

But they didn't close the strait or disrupt flow of oil. They also operate in completely different place.

They captured one ship over the years, I read?

Also, the Houthi's have attacked vessels in the Red Sea, not the Strait of Hormuz, if I'm seeing correctly online.

 

[TheAtomicPile]

But they didn't close the strait or disrupt flow of oil. They also operate in completely different place.

They captured one ship over the years, I read?

Oil and consumer goods do have to be shipped along alternate routes around Africa because of them which can take weeks longer. They captured one ship but sank several others and damaged even more. It has been a significant disruption. So the idea that Iran "wasn't attacking shipping before Epic Fury" doesn't hold up.

Hopefully Iran comes out of this degraded enough that they can't fund or arm them going forward.

 

[Darius87]

I think you'll find it's Iran attacking the shipping.

and that's trump fault, because he attacked iran without securing straight.

 

[Bojji]

Oil and consumer goods do have to be shipped along alternate routes around Africa because of them which can take weeks longer. They captured one ship but sank several others and damaged even more. It has been a significant disruption. So the idea that Iran "wasn't attacking shipping before Epic Fury" doesn't hold up.

Hopefully Iran comes out of this degraded enough that they can't fund or arm them going forward.

Some disruption and increased cost? Yes, but not comparable to ships being trapped in one place and all flow of oil essentially shut down.

Before this war Iran had no interest in stopping the flow of THEIR oil (that was making them tons of money).

 

[adamsapple]

Some disruption and increased cost? Yes, but not comparable to ships being trapped in one place and all flow of oil essentially shut down.

Before this war Iran had no interest in stopping the flow of THEIR oil (that was making them tons of money).

And now they're gonna resume their operations (after the US leaves) *and* get money from other countries, up to $2 million per ship, for safe passage.

We went in without a real plan and ended up giving Iran a lucrative source of income that wasn't there before.

 

[TheAtomicPile]

Some disruption and increased cost? Yes, but not comparable to ships being trapped in one place and all flow of oil essentially shut down.

Before this war Iran had no interest in stopping the flow of THEIR oil (that was making them tons of money).

Yes they escalated things after being attacked but again, Iran via its terror network have significantly impacted shipping for years.

Should the US and Israel just not respond to Iran's actions and its support for Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.?

 

[Bojji]

Yes they escalated things after being attacked but again, Iran via its terror network have significantly impacted shipping for years.

Should the US and Israel just not respond to Iran's actions and its support for Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.?

So far their (USA+Israel) response made the situation much worse.

Why not attack terrorists groups instead?

 

[TheAtomicPile]

So far their (USA+Israel) response made the situation much worse.

Why not attack terrorists groups instead?

The US and Israel have been hitting each of those groups.

 

[Wildebeest]

So far their (USA+Israel) response made the situation much worse.

But did they make things worser enough? Did you think of that? If the US doesn't make everything worse for everyone (other than China) then who will?

 

[FullMetalx117]

It's amusing to see "we've won" because all their missile/nuclear/military capability was "set back". Guys…the same thing happened last summer. Iran has been 1 week away from a nuclear weapon for 40 years running and will be 1 week away a few months from now.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Yes they escalated things after being attacked but again, Iran via its terror network have significantly impacted shipping for years.

Should the US and Israel just not respond to Iran's actions and its support for Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.?

The US has been fighting Hezbollah for over 40 years, any estimates on when it's mission accomplished?

 

[Wildebeest]

It's amusing to see "we've won" because all their missile/nuclear/military capability was "set back". Guys…the same thing happened last summer. Iran has been 1 week away from a nuclear weapon for 40 years running and will be 1 week away a few months from now.

50 billion in tax payer dollars to scrap some stuff that will be reordered from temu at deep discount the moment they go home.