I don't know what intelligence or weapon loadout or force reserves Trump has at his disposal. My only point was that the obstacle can be overcome if there is enough power and grit at Trump's disposal. Is there anything wrong with how the United States compelled Japan to surrender? (Remember, the military leadership were urging resistance in the face of the two weapons being used. Very similar to IRGC hotheads.)
By the way, absent nuclear weapons (yet to be substantiated), we have already won militarily. The problem is closing on the main objective in the face of a chaotic political environment in Iran.
Trump has a constraint not generally discussed. He is the de facto leader of a military coalition involving Saudi Arabia, UAE, and a few others. He can't move any faster than their stomachs can stand. If there is a nuke running around, I think the clear order of business is to track it down and neutralize it---and also identify the source of it. Whoever that party is, is clearly an enemy of all.
Yes, if. The argument from ignorance is also not compelling. But yes, of course, there was something wrong with that: it was completely unnecessary and murderous. There's a reason why apologized.
we have already won militarily
lol, no. The administration set out four objectives and followed it up with a fifth one informally later:
Destroying Iran’s missile capabilities: Not done. They keep on shooting missiles at Arab states and Israel.
Annihilating their navy: Somewhat done, with their major vessels, but they still have several dozen to low hundreds of speed boats that can effectively mine the Persian Gulf.
Ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon: This is literally impossible as "never" requires us waiting until the end of time, but even if we take it at face value, they didn't have a nuclear weapon before this and don't have one now, so the situation is no different materially in that sense. The big difference is that now they have a much greater incentive to get a nuclear weapon.
Ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders: Complete fail, as Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Houthis are not disarmed or destroyed at all.
The fifth implicit one was the notion of toppling the government, which is also completely unrealistic and the administration later explicitly said was not an objective after calling for it.
He is the de facto leader of a military coalition involving Saudi Arabia, UAE, and a few others
Yeah, we'll see how long that lasts. If you were Qatar or the UAE, would you want to be an American ally after this? Iran completely destroyed the American military bases there, causing billions of dollars of damage and killing American and Arab state civilians for what? This just made a bunch of irrelevant actors a target.
f there is a nuke running around, I think the clear order of business is to track it down and neutralize it
There's that pesky "if" again. Meanwhile, we actually do know one Middle East rogue nation that is nuclear-armed and in the midst of committing genocide. Do you know who that is?
I don't know what intelligence or weapon loadout or force reserves Trump has at his disposal. My only point was that the obstacle can be overcome if there is enough power and grit at Trump's disposal. Is there anything wrong with how the United States compelled Japan to surrender? (Remember, the military leadership were urging resistance in the face of the two weapons being used. Very similar to IRGC hotheads.)
By the way, absent nuclear weapons (yet to be substantiated), we have already won militarily. The problem is closing on the main objective in the face of a chaotic political environment in Iran.
Trump has a constraint not generally discussed. He is the de facto leader of a military coalition involving Saudi Arabia, UAE, and a few others. He can't move any faster than their stomachs can stand. If there is a nuke running around, I think the clear order of business is to track it down and neutralize it---and also identify the source of it. Whoever that party is, is clearly an enemy of all.
Yes, if. The argument from ignorance is also not compelling. But yes, of course, there was something wrong with that: it was completely unnecessary and murderous. There's a reason why apologized.
lol, no. The administration set out four objectives and followed it up with a fifth one informally later:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/operation-epic-fury-decisive-american-power-to-crush-irans-terror-regime/
The fifth implicit one was the notion of toppling the government, which is also completely unrealistic and the administration later explicitly said was not an objective after calling for it.
Yeah, we'll see how long that lasts. If you were Qatar or the UAE, would you want to be an American ally after this? Iran completely destroyed the American military bases there, causing billions of dollars of damage and killing American and Arab state civilians for what? This just made a bunch of irrelevant actors a target.
There's that pesky "if" again. Meanwhile, we actually do know one Middle East rogue nation that is nuclear-armed and in the midst of committing genocide. Do you know who that is?