They don't believe that. Iranians also respond to geopolitical pressures just like anyone else. If reports (on this board) are to be believed, this war has emboldened and empowered the hardest-line elements of their government. If it is the case that there is something inherent to the Shia culture of Iran that is an apocalyptic death cult, then what is your proposal here? The United States cannot win a war with Iran without insanely huge costs. Iraq had a population a quarter its size, was far less prepared, and wasn't surrounded by mountains, and it took the United States 20 years and a trillion dollars to basically just turn it into a quagmire (where Iran now has a loyalist military foothold that it didn't have prior to 2003). Should the United States spend $4 trillion and 80 years trying to occupy Iran instead? I have no clue what you think "seeing it all the way through" is, but it's infeasible at best and completely disastrous morally. We cannot win a military victory here.
No one said it. I inferred it from the fact that that is how the United States beat Japan in World War II. As I wrote above, there is no path for a military victory in Iran. You responded by saying that America beat Japan. If you aren't trying to imply using a similar tactic, you have to see how that's a pretty clear implication of what you wrote.
That said, what is your strategy for winning militarily in Iran?
They don't believe that. Iranians also respond to geopolitical pressures just like anyone else. If reports (on this board) are to be believed, this war has emboldened and empowered the hardest-line elements of their government. If it is the case that there is something inherent to the Shia culture of Iran that is an apocalyptic death cult, then what is your proposal here? The United States cannot win a war with Iran without insanely huge costs. Iraq had a population a quarter its size, was far less prepared, and wasn't surrounded by mountains, and it took the United States 20 years and a trillion dollars to basically just turn it into a quagmire (where Iran now has a loyalist military foothold that it didn't have prior to 2003). Should the United States spend $4 trillion and 80 years trying to occupy Iran instead? I have no clue what you think "seeing it all the way through" is, but it's infeasible at best and completely disastrous morally. We cannot win a military victory here.
We faced this problem in the form of Japan in World War II, its soldiers dying en masse to preserve the honor of the divine Emperor. Guess who won?
So you are suggesting dropping multiple nuclear bombs on Iran?
Who said that? Where? You really ought not to read your own thoughts into the words of others.
No one said it. I inferred it from the fact that that is how the United States beat Japan in World War II. As I wrote above, there is no path for a military victory in Iran. You responded by saying that America beat Japan. If you aren't trying to imply using a similar tactic, you have to see how that's a pretty clear implication of what you wrote.
That said, what is your strategy for winning militarily in Iran?