US and Israel attack Iran

[Handlebar]

In February 2026? Are we assuming the other bad decisions that led us up to this point are still in place or do we get to play Monday morning QB and question those too?

Two weeks ago the situation was the same as it had been for decades. Not good, but manageable. We can try to guess at how far Iran was from an operational nuclear weapon, but that is completely unknown. The "success" in Venezuela seemed to perk our interest in targeting leaders so we thought the next logical step would be assassination. When we (lumping Israel and US together here) learned of the leadership meeting it apparently seemed like a great chance at our new strategy. Boom!. It took 48 hours to learn that the guys we hoped would take over as more Western-friendly leaders were at the meeting and killed in the attack. OK, so that plan just goes into the toilet. Plan B? Not sure there is one other than spread BS and declare progress toward a perfect ending. We just keep throwing $1m interceptor missiles at $50,000 drones and talking tough to the press. As a side benefit, we have knee capped the global economy by constraining the core supply of energy by 20%.

The answer to your question is obvious and the same as it has been for 45 years. Do nothing. If there are 20 possible endings to this story, 19 of them are bad. In a power vacuum, the nice guys never assume control. Highest probability is younger, more extreme leadership that learns to promise one thing and do the opposite out of sight.

If you want the one positive to be reality, it's going to take more than what we are doing. The real question is who is going to support finishing the job with troops? In for a penny, in for a pound?

Who were the more Western Friendly leaders that were also killed?

 

[nrpate05]

It's funny that no matter what Trump did in this situation, he'll be hated by the other side of the aisle. If he didn't put a stop to Iran's nuclear program, in ~5 years when they attacked the US, he would be blamed for not stopping them when he had the chance.

I wouldn't suggest sitting idle while Iran - the "death to America" country - gears up with nukes. Iran has had their sights set on the US since 1979 during the Islamic Revolution.

It is far better to act now vs waiting until something tragic happens on US soil. We've waited for bad things to happen in the past, vs acting on the offense, like Pearl Harbor. I'd rather be proactive and prevent a problem then wait for it to explode.

So why aren't we bombing Russia or China or North Korea? The talking point about 'we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud' is old news. It worked in the past, but Americans aren't buying it anymore. Our own intelligence said Iran was nowhere close to getting a nuke. Israel said they were two weeks away, they've been saying that for fifty years.

We're spending $1billion per day on this war. We've got problems here at home that could be easily remedied with that kind of money, but we're too interested in paying Israel's bills. The contempt this government has for the American people is unbelievable.

 

[Addicting]

We're spending $1billion per day on this war. We've got problems here at home that could be easily remedied with that kind of money

But those would be positive news that wouldn’t inflame the division they are trying to keep alive.

 

[nrpate05]

But those would be positive news that wouldn’t inflame the division they are trying to keep alive.

Yea true, maybe I still think there is a shred of hope that our government would ever do anything to actually help Americans, but that's probably me being naive. Here's to higher gas prices!

 

[SAJ-99]

Who were the more Western Friendly leaders that were also killed?

Whoever Trump wanted in charge. I assume they're a little more friendly to the West. Maybe that is big assumption?

 

[rjthehunter]

So why aren't we bombing Russia or China or North Korea? The talking point about 'we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud' is old news. It worked in the past, but Americans aren't buying it anymore. Our own intelligence said Iran was nowhere close to getting a nuke. Israel said they were two weeks away, they've been saying that for fifty years.

We're spending $1billion per day on this war. We've got problems here at home that could be easily remedied with that kind of money, but we're too interested in paying Israel's bills. The contempt this government has for the American people is unbelievable.

The conversation needs to happen about military spending and contracting and how we manage to spend so much on simple items, but that's neither here nor there. We're in the situation now.

I'd rather spend money ensuring the US is safe vs wasting billions on fake daycares...

I won't argue with you that there is plenty of work within our walls that needs taken care of. I'd rather not send billions to foreign countries for no reason. But I can understand how and why we're worried about Iran and their development of Nukes.

 

[Handlebar]

Whoever Trump wanted in charge. I assume they're a little more friendly to the West. Maybe that is big assumption?

I cannot find any reports that indicate that potential preferred Iranians were killed. Nor can I find a report that says intelligence learned that more moderates were killed during an attack. If you have some sources that indicate that we have killed some that thought we could work with, would you share.

per NBC news

“We want them to have a good leader. We have some people who I think would do a good job,” he added, declining to name anyone.

Trump also said he is taking steps to make sure the people on his list make it through the war alive.

"We are watching them, yeah," he said.

Trump's comments expand on remarks he made in an interview with NBC News on Saturday. Asked who will lead Iran next, Trump replied, “I don’t know, but at some point they’ll be calling me to ask who I’d like,” adding that he was “only being a little sarcastic when I say that.”

 

[Handlebar]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-bomb-us-israel-war-satellite-images

How close is Iran to building a nuclear bomb?​

Under its original 2015 nuclear deal agreed by the Obama administration, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67 per cent purity and to maintain a uranium stockpile of 300kg (661 pounds). The IAEA put Iran’s stockpile at 9,874.9kg (21,770.4 pounds) before the start of the 12-day Israel-Iran war last June, with 440.9kg (972 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60 per cent.

That would allow Iran to build several nuclear weapons, if it chose to do so. Experts have suggested Iran had sufficient material to produce up to five nuclear weapons in under a week if it were to enrich material further, according to Darya Dolzikova, senior research fellow with RUSI’s (Royal United Services Institute) proliferation and nuclear policy programme.

 

[Straight Arrow]

We're spending $1billion per day on this war. We've got problems here at home that could be easily remedied with that kind of money

Top priority to funding killing people and destroying ancient civilizations' amazing structures ... while cancer research and medical problems' mitigation is severely and sadly underfunded!

 

[SAJ-99]

I cannot find any reports that indicate that potential preferred Iranians were killed. Nor can I find a report that says intelligence learned that more moderates were killed during an attack. If you have some sources that indicate that we have killed some that thought we could work with, would you share.

per NBC news

“We want them to have a good leader. We have some people who I think would do a good job,” he added, declining to name anyone.

Trump also said he is taking steps to make sure the people on his list make it through the war alive.

"We are watching them, yeah," he said.

Trump's comments expand on remarks he made in an interview with NBC News on Saturday. Asked who will lead Iran next, Trump replied, “I don’t know, but at some point they’ll be calling me to ask who I’d like,” adding that he was “only being a little sarcastic when I say that.”

This is such old news that this article is pointless. He said it the weekend of the strikes. I watched him say it and was shocked he would admit to it. But he’s Trump and there’s a microphone and he can’t stop himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/world/middleeast/iranian-leaders-trum.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

[rogerthat]

I cannot find any reports that indicate that potential preferred Iranians were killed. Nor can I find a report that says intelligence learned that more moderates were killed during an attack. If you have some sources that indicate that we have killed some that thought we could work with, would you share.

per NBC news

“We want them to have a good leader. We have some people who I think would do a good job,” he added, declining to name anyone.

Trump also said he is taking steps to make sure the people on his list make it through the war alive.

"We are watching them, yeah," he said.

Trump's comments expand on remarks he made in an interview with NBC News on Saturday. Asked who will lead Iran next, Trump replied, “I don’t know, but at some point they’ll be calling me to ask who I’d like,” adding that he was “only being a little sarcastic when I say that.”

Trump said in a previous Q and A something to the effect the people they had in mind to replace the ayatollah are now dead also.

 

[Handlebar]

President Trump has revealed uncertainty about who will take over Iran, as many of the likely front-runners were killed in initial strikes.

"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl.

"It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."

Most of the people we had in mind are dead," Trump told reporters Tuesday. "So, you know, we had some in mind from that group that is, is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also based on reports. So, I guess you have a third wave coming in. Pretty soon we're not going to know anybody.


I take his comments to mean that they had a feeling on who the successor could be, not that they had someone in mind that they wanted.

 

[D_Walt]

In February 2026? Are we assuming the other bad decisions that led us up to this point are still in place or do we get to play Monday morning QB and question those too?

Two weeks ago the situation was the same as it had been for decades. Not good, but manageable. We can try to guess at how far Iran was from an operational nuclear weapon, but that is completely unknown. The "success" in Venezuela seemed to perk our interest in targeting leaders so we thought the next logical step would be assassination. When we (lumping Israel and US together here) learned of the leadership meeting it apparently seemed like a great chance at our new strategy. Boom!. It took 48 hours to learn that the guys we hoped would take over as more Western-friendly leaders were at the meeting and killed in the attack. OK, so that plan just goes into the toilet. Plan B? Not sure there is one other than spread BS and declare progress toward a perfect ending. We just keep throwing $1m interceptor missiles at $50,000 drones and talking tough to the press. As a side benefit, we have knee capped the global economy by constraining the core supply of energy by 20%.

The answer to your question is obvious and the same as it has been for 45 years. Do nothing. If there are 20 possible endings to this story, 19 of them are bad. In a power vacuum, the nice guys never assume control. Highest probability is younger, more extreme leadership that learns to promise one thing and do the opposite out of sight.

If you want the one positive to be reality, it's going to take more than what we are doing. The real question is who is going to support finishing the job with troops? In for a penny, in for a pound?

It’s a 50 year old turd sandwich no matter which way you slice it, I think that’s a given that just about everyone agrees on. Can’t do anything about the past, but the new Iranian leadership won’t be any more extreme at the end of this than the previous bunch of thugs/terrorists that were hell bent on murder and mayhem. No way to know how this will play out long term, but I remain in the camp that long term inaction would be equally disastrous or far worse. I think the spike in energy prices will be short term, once the first tanker goes through the straight of Hormuz it will begin to ease.

 

[Bonasababy]

For all the wise internet sages that think this action in Iran is doomed to failure/terrible idea/start of WW3; what would you have done instead? Ignore Itan entirely? Doubled down on sanctions and try to bankrupt them (unsuccessfully) for another 50 years? Wait for them to have another 100k drones to send out? Wait until they fully develop nuclear capability and embrace the “stability” that would bring the world? Hope the Ayatollah suddenly becomes super chill? What would you have done?

This needs a going back in time first.

Let's start with Trump in 2018, when he pulled the United States out of the Joint plan of action set up to limit and enforce Iran's move towards nukes. He imposed economic sanctions that he claimed would force them into agreeing to a "better" deal.

BIG time fail. Sanctions hurt regular iranians more than the regime, they never came to the table, started pulling away from prior agreements,and soon started enriching at an accelerated rate.

 

[atlas]

We got some pretty good slam poetry from Hegseth

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Forkyfinder]

In Iran, presently, it has not been ruled out.

Having all options on the table only bolsters your ability to negotiate with your adversary.

Itd be obvious political suicide.

 

[PoleX]

I think there were other consideration's outside of just the nuclear debate:

Iran edges towards high-speed missile deal with China

Iran is close to finalising a deal with China to acquire advanced CM-302 supersonic anti-ship missiles, a move that could significantly boost Tehrans naval strike capability and threaten United States forces in the region. Negotiations, underway for at least two years, accelerated after last...

m.economictimes.com

 

[Bonasababy]

Us lost 92,000 jobs last week, unemployment up to 4.4%. Huge cost of war... Fed meeting should be interesting.

 

[NR_Hunter]

This is from the official White House Twitter account.

So we can get declassified videos of dudes getting launched off a frigate in 4k resolution but not an unredacted version of the Epstein files?

I find myself deeply embarrassed by these videos. There are actual human beings turned into pink mist in those explosions and the regime is gonna make funny clips out of them with pop culture references? Who are these videos even for? Who do they appeal to? Who actually thinks they’re cool?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029741548791853331

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029953667600646655

 

[noharleyyet]

This is from the official White House Twitter account.

So we can get declassified videos of dudes getting launched off a frigate in 4k resolution but not an unredacted version of the Epstein files?

I find myself deeply embarrassed by these videos. There are actual human beings turned into pink mist in those explosions and the regime is gonna make funny clips out of them with pop culture references? Who are these videos even for? Who do they appeal to? Who actually thinks they’re cool?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029741548791853331

https://twitter.com/x/status/2029953667600646655

Hollywood obviously thinks it's cool, isn't that part of your premise?