Is he opening the door to troops on the ground?We're about to win the war again.
We have to get out of this war. We're never going to Where's Waldo our way into eliminating the threat of Iran launching 10'x10' ship-killing drones from the back of trucks. Can't be done.
The Brits were convinced we were well on our way to a deal 2 days before we began the war. They were amazed at Iran's opening bid. Read the story. Whatever we get now has to be significantly better to make the war worthwhile. I am doubtful we get better, at all. Anything giving Iran control of the Strait is automatically worse.
I feel like Japan planning Pearl. We will hit them so hard they will cave. No one asks, "What if they don't?". It seems obvious that there was not a plan if shock and awe didn't do either.
Letting Iran control the strait is unlawful under international law. That would be unacceptable.The Brits were convinced we were well on our way to a deal 2 days before we began the war. They were amazed at Iran's opening bid. Read the story. Whatever we get now has to be significantly better to make the war worthwhile. I am doubtful we get better, at all. Anything giving Iran control of the Strait is automatically worse.
I feel like Japan planning Pearl. We will hit them so hard they will cave. No one asks, "What if they don't?". It seems obvious that there was not a plan if shock and awe didn't do either.
"The Brits?" "They?"The Brits were convinced we were well on our way to a deal 2 days before we began the war. They were amazed at Iran's opening bid. Read the story. Whatever we get now has to be significantly better to make the war worthwhile. I am doubtful we get better, at all. Anything giving Iran control of the Strait is automatically worse.
I feel like Japan planning Pearl. We will hit them so hard they will cave. No one asks, "What if they don't?". It seems obvious that there was not a plan if shock and awe didn't do either.
It's one Brit, and Downing Street declined to comment on his views, other than to say Powell was not present “in the talks.”
Now if he's right about where the talks were and if the Iranians would have eventually agreed to the terms mentioned and if they would have abided by those terms, that would have been a nice step forward. But that seems like a lot of "ifs."
@bradstevens and how many ifs are in play right now?
Is there any evidence we had a plan beyond shock and awe? Please present it.
From the beginning, wasn't the plan to take out Khamenei? I'm not sure that's the same as "shock and awe." The U.S. accomplished that task. It also appears to have accomplished a task of destroying a lot of Iranian military targets. Am I satisfied with how this is going down right now? No. Am I going to pretend like I know what is going to happen with this in the end? No.@bradstevens and how many ifs are in play right now?
Is there any evidence we had a plan beyond shock and awe? Please present it.
But none of that has anything to do with a lone Brit stating that in his opinion the Iranians were ready to give up the farm in the negotiations before we pulled out. Given their bargaining strategy and history, does that really make sense to you that that would happen? Haven't we been reading about what great negotiators they are? How intransigent they are?
From the beginning, wasn't the plan to take out Khamenei? I'm not sure that's the same as "shock and awe." The U.S. accomplished that task. It also appears to have accomplished a task of destroying a lot of Iranian military targets. Am I satisfied with how this is going down right now? No. Am I going to pretend like I know what is going to happen with this in the end? No.@bradstevens and how many ifs are in play right now?
Is there any evidence we had a plan beyond shock and awe? Please present it.
But none of that has anything to do with a lone Brit stating that in his opinion the Iranians were ready to give up the farm in the negotiations before we pulled out. Given their bargaining strategy and history, does that really make sense to you that that would happen? Haven't we been reading about what great negotiators they are? How intransigent they are?
Read post 1. Seems the "plan" was to have the regime fall. Did Trump really think he could pull off a Venezuela situation? That all they needed to do was take out one guy and everything else would fall into place, with a compliant IRGC?
I have a very low opinion of the majority of the administration, but even they couldn't be that stupid of history to be giving Trump that kind of advice.
We all know Trump doesn't know shit about anything he's doing, but someone sold him on... Something?
Well, they took out more than one guy, but yes, that might be what this administration was thinking. I think some of them also had a pie-in-the-sky notion that the Iranian people would rise up and overthrow their government. But the back up also might have been (I don't think anyone can say with certainty what was really going on in the "administration" since they all probably had different ideas for justifications), if the regime change didn't work, this will just turn into a mow-the-lawn strategy, and that is better than Iran getting a nuke.From the beginning, wasn't the plan to take out Khamenei? I'm not sure that's the same as "shock and awe." The U.S. accomplished that task. It also appears to have accomplished a task of destroying a lot of Iranian military targets. Am I satisfied with how this is going down right now? No. Am I going to pretend like I know what is going to happen with this in the end? No.@bradstevens and how many ifs are in play right now?
Is there any evidence we had a plan beyond shock and awe? Please present it.
But none of that has anything to do with a lone Brit stating that in his opinion the Iranians were ready to give up the farm in the negotiations before we pulled out. Given their bargaining strategy and history, does that really make sense to you that that would happen? Haven't we been reading about what great negotiators they are? How intransigent they are?
Read post 1. Seems the "plan" was to have the regime fall. Did Trump really think he could pull off a Venezuela situation? That all they needed to do was take out one guy and everything else would fall into place, with a compliant IRGC?
I have a very low opinion of the majority of the administration, but even they couldn't be that stupid of history to be giving Trump that kind of advice.
We all know Trump doesn't know shit about anything he's doing, but someone sold him on... Something?
Again, this has nothing to do with my initial response to Marv. Your point about how unrealistic it is to think the IRGC would become compliant contradicts the Brit's report that Iran was ready to capitulate in the negotiations before Trump withdrew and joined the bombing campaign.
From the beginning, wasn't the plan to take out Khamenei? I'm not sure that's the same as "shock and awe." The U.S. accomplished that task. It also appears to have accomplished a task of destroying a lot of Iranian military targets. Am I satisfied with how this is going down right now? No. Am I going to pretend like I know what is going to happen with this in the end? No.@bradstevens and how many ifs are in play right now?
Is there any evidence we had a plan beyond shock and awe? Please present it.
But none of that has anything to do with a lone Brit stating that in his opinion the Iranians were ready to give up the farm in the negotiations before we pulled out. Given their bargaining strategy and history, does that really make sense to you that that would happen? Haven't we been reading about what great negotiators they are? How intransigent they are?
First, the link below says, "Powell's presence at the talks, held at Oman's ambassadorial residence in Cologny, Geneva, was confirmed by three sources."
https://www.trtworld.com/article/35c2cb3e672c
Second, there is a difference between tactics and strategy. I am reading a book on Germany in the last year and the guy points out how Germany had all these plans to activate more people for the workforce to move those workers to the military. Or building more wonder weapons. But neither had an end, how would 50,000 more men change the situation in August of 44? Same for V2. Doing something does not mean you are moving toward a goal, or that you have a goal.
So, we wanted to kill the Supreme Leader. How does that advance the goal given many in Intel believe his son is more hardline? It has been widely reported by people from other administrations that war games always resulted in Iran closing the strait. So why were we unprepared? Want proof, we had our minesweepers most the way around the world.
Killing Khamenei isn't a strategy, it isn't advancing the ball. If we had to attack that night because it was the only time to kill him, it had nothing to do with the "dust". Earlier you were discussing maybe mowing is all we could do, we did that with Midnight Hammer. This didn't mow the lawn. Some in the Admin discussed needing to destroy their missiles, the MOU puts no limits on their missile program.
Powell wrote London before the war. Why would he make up being there and what he said given he had no idea we were about to attack? What would be the purpose of making up an Iranian peace offering?
From the Institute for the Study of War suggests Iran is working to flip our allies.
Iranian officials are simultaneously employing diplomatic outreach and military coercion to pressure regional states to support a new “regional security mechanism,” likely to advance Iran’s long-standing objective of expelling the United States from the Middle East. Iran is likely using this proposed regional security mechanism to encourage Gulf states to distance themselves from the United States in exchange for cooperation with Iran. Iran may be offering economic cooperation, guarantees against Iranian attacks, and access to the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for Gulf support for key Iranian demands.
I don't think he has to be making anything up. He has an interpretation. It's not the interpretation of all "Brits." Agreed? It's one guy.From the beginning, wasn't the plan to take out Khamenei? I'm not sure that's the same as "shock and awe." The U.S. accomplished that task. It also appears to have accomplished a task of destroying a lot of Iranian military targets. Am I satisfied with how this is going down right now? No. Am I going to pretend like I know what is going to happen with this in the end? No.@bradstevens and how many ifs are in play right now?
Is there any evidence we had a plan beyond shock and awe? Please present it.
But none of that has anything to do with a lone Brit stating that in his opinion the Iranians were ready to give up the farm in the negotiations before we pulled out. Given their bargaining strategy and history, does that really make sense to you that that would happen? Haven't we been reading about what great negotiators they are? How intransigent they are?
First, the link below says, "Powell's presence at the talks, held at Oman's ambassadorial residence in Cologny, Geneva, was confirmed by three sources."
https://www.trtworld.com/article/35c2cb3e672c
Second, there is a difference between tactics and strategy. I am reading a book on Germany in the last year and the guy points out how Germany had all these plans to activate more people for the workforce to move those workers to the military. Or building more wonder weapons. But neither had an end, how would 50,000 more men change the situation in August of 44? Same for V2. Doing something does not mean you are moving toward a goal, or that you have a goal.
So, we wanted to kill the Supreme Leader. How does that advance the goal given many in Intel believe his son is more hardline? It has been widely reported by people from other administrations that war games always resulted in Iran closing the strait. So why were we unprepared? Want proof, we had our minesweepers most the way around the world.
Killing Khamenei isn't a strategy, it isn't advancing the ball. If we had to attack that night because it was the only time to kill him, it had nothing to do with the "dust". Earlier you were discussing maybe mowing is all we could do, we did that with Midnight Hammer. This didn't mow the lawn. Some in the Admin discussed needing to destroy their missiles, the MOU puts no limits on their missile program.
Powell wrote London before the war. Why would he make up being there and what he said given he had no idea we were about to attack? What would be the purpose of making up an Iranian peace offering?
Is he right? Maybe. But how would we know? Why take one guy's interpretation as "the truth," other than it confirms your priors?
As for why we were unprepared re the Strait, that's a question for the military and the war gamers, isn't it?
Re mowing the lawn, I'm not sure how you can say "This didn't mow the lawn" re the nuclear ambitions. How can you be certain of that?
@bradstevens as to your last question, the vast majority of sites we hit were non nuclear. Unless they had material in a girl's school. If we had nailed more significant nuclear sites, you don't think we would have shouted it from the rooftop? Didn't we have a plan to try and get to the spot destroyed in Midnight Hammer to get to it? Why bother with that if there are all these other locations.
We killed some leaders, we shouted that from the rooftop. We claim to have destroyed their missiles and drones, we shouted that. We may have been wrong as they seem to still have plenty.
As to his interpretation, sure, that was "just" his interpretation. I waited a long time to be critical of the war, saying Trump needed to sell it. He hasn't, at some point it becomes clear we don't have anything to sell. You say the preparation for the war with mine sweepers and the closure is for the military. Who is the head of the military?
You are bending over so backwards to prove you are fair to Trump there is no accountability on this war (or anything) whatsoever. Either we had plans to deal with the strait being closed or we did not. Not a drop of evidence that we had a plan has been submitted. No public firings to indicate Trump/Hegseth believed it was a screw up along the lines of being Black or female in the military. You know, where there were several such removals before the war (and thus it wasn't them involved).
I think Trump is a dunce about lots of things, Marv. I've said so many times over the years. But you partisans get mad because I don't shout it from the rooftops with every post, give him credit where credit is due, and look at each new report with skepticism. Sorry, but our media hasn't really engendered a lot of trust there, and people like to exaggerate the importance of various reports--like you attributing the opinion of one guy to the official or widely held opinion of "the Brits." Not sure why you can't just admit--yeah, I exaggerated that a bit.@bradstevens as to your last question, the vast majority of sites we hit were non nuclear. Unless they had material in a girl's school. If we had nailed more significant nuclear sites, you don't think we would have shouted it from the rooftop? Didn't we have a plan to try and get to the spot destroyed in Midnight Hammer to get to it? Why bother with that if there are all these other locations.
We killed some leaders, we shouted that from the rooftop. We claim to have destroyed their missiles and drones, we shouted that. We may have been wrong as they seem to still have plenty.
As to his interpretation, sure, that was "just" his interpretation. I waited a long time to be critical of the war, saying Trump needed to sell it. He hasn't, at some point it becomes clear we don't have anything to sell. You say the preparation for the war with mine sweepers and the closure is for the military. Who is the head of the military?
You are bending over so backwards to prove you are fair to Trump there is no accountability on this war (or anything) whatsoever. Either we had plans to deal with the strait being closed or we did not. Not a drop of evidence that we had a plan has been submitted. No public firings to indicate Trump/Hegseth believed it was a screw up along the lines of being Black or female in the military. You know, where there were several such removals before the war (and thus it wasn't them involved).
As for this war, I've been critical of Trump from the start for not explaining it to the American people first. For not getting Congressional approval. Not sure why you "waited" to be critical of that. I've also mocked those who want to place blame for Trump's decision to go to war on Netenyahu and Israel, expressly stating that this war is firmly on Trump's shoulders--he's where the buck stops for that.
But re the military plans, I don't expect Presidents to know or be responsible for that level of detail. I think if you stop and think about it, neither do you. If you'll remember, I didn't criticize Biden directly for the Afghan withdrawal, either. I also tend not to blame presidents for widespread economic issues--although yes, it's clear the Iran decision spiked oil prices for a few months and it might continue. But unlike you partisans, I find it cartoonish to turn the President into a comic book superhero who has control over all world affairs, all military ops, etc. He's one very powerful actor in an ocean of circumstances and sitting over vast institutions that affect him just as much as he affects them (which is not to say that some are better or worse at doing these things, and I think Trump is not particularly good at running govt institutions, among other things).
As for the "either we had plans or we did not," are you serious? Sometimes you have plans and they do not work. Sometimes your intel is wrong. Sometimes the military develops a shitty plan. Do you want a civilian President micromanaging those? Do you want THIS president doing that? I sure don't. Or maybe Trump's decision was--and this would be a policy level of decision making that we can and should criticize our Presidents for--the risk of the closure was worth it weighed against the probability of killing Khameni and the possibility of secularizing Iran or pushing back their nuclear program another few years or a decade. Again, I think if that was the calculus, it should have been debated in Congress at some point and sold to the American people (and I admit that shows a lingering naivete on my part) . But can you definitively say that weighing of those values and probabilities was wrong, ex ante?
As for your first point, the government has pointed out that (1) we are doing this along with Israel (who I will include in "we" hereinafter), who has hit nuclear sights while we focus on other targets, (2) the strikes have decimated leadership, which we hope will affect their ambitions, (3) we've decimated their air defenses which will make future strikes on nuclear sites--in existence now or in the future--much easier, and (4) we've killed Iran's leading nuclear scientists. Is that enough? Are those reports true? Are the exagerrated? I don't know and neither do you.
As for the girl's school crack, you're better than that.