We MIGHT do something stupid like grab Kharg Island which will be nothing more than a shooting gallery for our troops.

Or we might send the 82nd airborne and some special forces to dig out the nuclear material, which happens to be a few miles from a big city, so ummm, no support, waves of Iranians, ummm bad idea.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

So, no land attack.

We are once again left with the reminder that air power does not hold ground.

This is a war that Piggy CAN NOT WIN

There is ONLY the cost that will be incurred until Piggy comes to that realization.

Since Piggy is who Piggy is and Piggy does not admit mistakes and he cannot TACO (Israel and Iran have a word to say) I think a nuke is likely when he gets truly desperate.

For the record he sort of sent up a trial balloon today about nukes when he answered a question about the $200 billion funding request with a comment about the power of the weaponry our military has that could end this in 2 seconds.

CLEARLY, he has nukes on the brain.

And who here thinks Piggy wouldn't use a nuke if he thought he couldn't win. this is the man who wanted to nuke hurricanes. He has asked his military why he can't use nukes in the past.

But he will declare he won, and that he achieved all his undeclared goals for starting the war.

#2 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGH

Will that open the strait of Hormuz?

So yeah Trump may have the singular achievement of losing a war without even the temporary achievement of controlling some of the country

We are 3 weeks in.

And yes, easily.

90,000,000 people.

During the Korean war we destroyed all but 2 buildings in the NK capital and they fought on

We leveled entire cities throughout Germany in WW2 Not only did they not quit they increased production.

In Vietnam we dropped how may millions of bombs? Did that help us win?

Hamas didn't quit after 2 years of absolute devastation and starvation.

We are dropping 5,000 lb bunker busters to take out missile launchers (assuming they were actually in those caves). Is that a cost benefit ratio in our favor?

AND WE MURDERED THEIR LEADER WHO HAPPENED TO BE THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADER.

They can stand 4 more MONTHS of this. I can't understand how people think they WOULDN'T fight on. Especially since we attacked during negotiations twice, we murdered their leaders, and this is existential for them. No they won't have a problem continuing this fight.

Can we? NOPE.

$200,000,000,0000 and that is just the beginning.

Countries are already running out of oil and LNG. Fertilizer will be through the roof-the planting season will be hurt badly, and it is too late to fix that meaning food shortages come summer and fall.

How much pressure do you think Piggy can take when all of these economic hits start stacking up?

Again, air power will not work no matter how much is destroyed. It in many ways unites the country against a common enemy. Killing their children will tend to foster a nihilistic attitude of hatred.

And all they need to do is keep like 5% of their military capability to keep the strait closed.

Do yourself a favor and research the military end of it, not just the war porn guys by the strategists the ones who study this stuff. They are ALL saying this is a disaster unfolding of historic proportions.

Military strategists largely agree that a U.S.-Israel war with Iran would achieve immediate tactical goals"destroying nuclear facilities, missile sites, and weakening the IRGC"but would fail to deliver a clear long-term endgame. The conflict risks creating a long-term, entrenched conflict rather than regime change, with Iran potentially becoming more hardline.

Key points of consensus include:
Tactical Success vs. Strategic Failure: While the U.S. and Israel can inflict devastating damage on Iranian infrastructure, there is no clear political mechanism for converting this military pressure into a successful, stable post-war government.
Resilience of the Regime: Despite leadership decapitation, Iranian leadership remains resilient, with a high likelihood that the regime would stay in power, or be replaced by a similar, more entrenched hardline faction rather than a pro-Western government.
Regional Instability and Proxies: The conflict risks expanding, with Iranian proxies potentially unleashing attacks throughout the Middle East, leading to a broader regional conflict.
Backfire Risk: Strategists warn of a multidimensional "backfire," where targeted killings harden Iranian public opinion, boost the regime's legitimacy through nationalism, and strain Western alliances, particularly regarding the diversion of resources from the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Limited Utility of Airpower: Air campaigns, while effective at destroying physical assets, are unlikely to cause a regime collapse and may accelerate Iran's drive for nuclear weaponization as a survival mechanism.

The prevailing view is that while tactical victories are likely, they may not lead to a lasting or beneficial strategic outcome.

Ask yourself what Piggy's response to the attack on the Iranian and Qatar LNG field tells you.

He FREAKED out on both Iran AND Israel (despite he approving Israel's attack).

That should tell you he has to date vastly underestimated Iran's willingness to lash out. (On top of the complete surprise from day 1 of Iran's ability and willingness to fight back-they have decimated our expensive radar network which has crippled most of our defenses)

That should tell you how sensitive he is to attacks on the oil sector throughout the ME.

It should tell you that Israel has completely different goals than the US and those goals are often at cross purposes. They are assassinating the people we should be negotiating with. They are targeting Iran's oil infrastructure which leads to tit-for-tat.

These are not things Trump wants or expected and he is freaking out about it. Closing the strait shocked him as evident by his begging allies to help him with (though opening the strait is pointless without a ceasefire).

Piggy is on edge which is scary bad

People need to understand that Israel's goal is to extend the conflict as long as possible so they can do with S. Lebanon and Iran what the did with Gaza. The IDF WANTS instability and chaos in Iran, they are killing the people in Iran we would negotiate with and all that does is harden Iranian opinion. They WANT Iran to destroy the ME oil facilities. All of that would justify a long term war with Iran.

Netanyahu's aim is on top of that where he wants war to avoid prison.

Those goals conflict with Piggy looking for an offramp.

He MIGHT be able to convince Israel to stop fighting (Israel would view it as a temporary ceasefire and would come back later-mowing the lawn as they say)/

But Piggy need Iran to agree to stop and Iran has ZERO incentive to quit. If they quit, they have no guarantee Israel (and the US) won't be back in a year and would have given up all of their advantage they gained destroying the radar network and shutting down the strait.

that is why we are screwed. Piggy can't taco even if he wanted to and Iran has no incentive to quit and frankly would be stupid to as that would only assure their long-term collapse. It is truly existential for them-either continue fighting with the goal of getting long term security guarantees OR face regular attacks by Israel until their society collapses.

so, no blowing up a bunch of shit won't solve that problem.

The end of the conflict is no longer up to Piggy.

Say he declares victory tomorrow and stops attacking and gets Israel to stop attacking.

Will that open the strait?

Nope

So, we bomb and repeat.

then what?

People need to stop with this timeframe question it is stupid. It's like predicting the length of the Iraq war in March 2003/

US sending more warships, troops to join war: Report
US-based news site Newsmax is reporting that US military forces are preparing to send several warships along with 4,000 marines and sailors to "reinforce its troops fighting against Iran", citing four unnamed officials.

The Boxer Amphibious Ready Group, which is being deployed from the US West Coast, also includes F-35 fighter jets, missiles, and amphibious vehicles that can be used to carry out land invasions, according to Newsmax.

The latest report comes after the US sent some 2,500 Marines and the USS Tripoli amphibious assault ship to the Middle East.

ayup

Ask a military historian the success rate of piecemeal reinforcement to a military campaign.

Let's ask AI

Piecemeal reinforcement"defined as feeding troops or resources into a battle or war gradually rather than in a single, massive wave"is generally considered a poor military strategy with a low success rate, as it often allows the enemy to "defeat in detail" (destroying units one by one).

2500 marines here

4000 marines there

piece meal

a poor military strategy

sounds about Hegseth