Posted on 07/30/2026 4:37:56 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Iran’s rulers are not playing to win the war today—they are playing to survive long enough to fight another one tomorrow.
We are now in Stage III of the Iran War: the familiar monotony of bomb, talk, bomb.
It is now the liberal consensus that the war has failed, if not been won by Iran.
We could be entering the war’s final stage, marked by an effort to escalate decisively before disengaging.
We know the tired Iranian strategy by now. We might call it “theocratic rope-a-dope.” For the theocrats and their terrorist proxies, survival means outlasting Trump, waiting for the next cash-laden Democratic administration, and using “moderates” to play good cop while haggling away months.
The mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps feign indifference even as their half-century, half-trillion-dollar investments in what is now essentially a vaporized military-industrial-nuclear complex continue to be destroyed.
The war has finally revealed the full extent of Iran’s vast conventional arsenal, nuclear program, and missile and drone industry.
These munitions proved far more numerous and deadlier than experts had imagined. The regime had poured much of its GDP into conventional arms, missiles, drones, and its nuclear program in hopes of dominating the Gulf, holding Israel beneath a nuclear sword of Damocles, and eventually bringing European cities within range of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.
The Islamic government shows no real concern for the attendant suffering of its own 93 million people. In the theocrats’ view, it matters little whether 1,000 civilians die as collateral damage from allied bombing or 36,000 are murdered by their own government. All that concerns these corrupt grandees is preserving their own comfort amid the rubble.
The Iranian zealots are counting on the Trump administration to withdraw, thereby avoiding a two-year-long impeachment and lawfare circus while preserving the Republican House majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Trump is WAY too nice both with Iran and also with the left here. That is his big fault. Next guy up needs to be a real effecent bastard.
He is also blessed with a Democratic Party now completly controlled by leftists.
That’s funny to you?
I think it’s hilarious how all you warmongering globalists try to turn every stupid war you’re peddling into a religious crusade.
You’re the free traitor globalist. You are also a souless creep that has lost reason. Does someone who is against the war also lose their ability to differentiate good and evil? Are you that lost?
I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
You are sick. Question : can a person be against the Iran war but acknowledge the two sides are very different with the Iran regime being evil and the USA being good for lack of a better word?
You can say this not the right time to fight this war or even say it’s not our problem but also acknowledge Iran regime is flat out evil?
“When the Ayatollah Khomenei called the United States of America ‘the Great Satan,’ he was probably right.”
YMMV.
You didn’t answer my question. It seems you are a fake, big taking coward.
There's a great deal of evil people in the world; there's a great deal of evil governments, too. Are you advocating that we fight them all?
In the great game of international politics, the people we ally with tend to be just as heinous as those we decry as enemies (see the various dictators that we allied with during the Cold War, or the Sunni Islamic regimes that we're allied with currently); heck, there's probably people in our own government whose sins would make the late Ayatollah blush.
Which gets back to the point of you characterizing this conflict as "good versus evil": what moral credibility does the United States government currently have in that regard?
You are a very misguided person. You’re attempt at moral equivocation is pathetic as much as it is infantile.
Freep pop quiz:
Regarding the current conflict with Iran who said the following:
“what moral credibility does the United States government currently have?”
A. The Washington Post editorial page
B. Freeper ‘ultra sonic 007’
C. The current Iranian Ayatollah
D. DSA spokesperson
Not an argument.
It is not a matter of "moral equivocation"; rather, it is pointing out the bare reality that our government's moral credibility is bupkis.
Take for example the common refrain of Iran's government cracking down on protestors earlier this year, killing tens of thousands. An evil act, to be sure.
Our government's handling of COVID, in terms of the cost to our own citizens' lives and welfare, was not only orders of magnitude worse, but was predicated on lies that people in power knew about, conspired to hide, and threatened to censor anyone who dared speak out to the contrary. And that's not even getting into countless other evils that would've made the Founders wonder why no one has revolted yet.
So if you're going to argue that we have a moral duty to fight Iran, I'm simply saying that you shouldn't be surprised that no one takes that idea seriously.
Ok, here is where you run off the rails. The US govt has done some pretty crappy things for sure. That doesn’t mean in an Iran USA conflict you get to help the enemy by supporting them thru anti war propaganda.
So let me help you. You can be against the war and remain silent about it. It’s that easy. Sure we had freedom of speech but it doesn’t mean you should exercise that right in this case. To do so makes you my enemy.
My guess is you are anti Israel and hate Bibi also but I could be wrong about that.
That's rich. It's telling that you think my motive is rooted in "helping Iran" versus "stopping our country from committing to actions that I believe are harmful to our national interests."
You can be against the war and remain silent about it.
In other words, "shut up, you have no right to freedom of speech because I deem it so".
Sure we had freedom of speech but it doesn’t mean you should exercise that right in this case. To do so makes you my enemy.
I missed the part where (a) we actually declared war against Iran (like we're supposed to), and (b) it was definitively established that our current foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran is in our national interest. How in the world is it un-American or treasonous to point out that this whole fiasco has panned out poorly, and that it would behoove us to stop?
My guess is you are anti Israel and hate Bibi also but I could be wrong about that.
I literally wish I didn't have to care about Israel at all, because they're another country that's thousands of miles away from ours, and their problems should not be our problems.
But when their own government ministers casually talk about how entering the current conflict with Iran is not in THEIR interest—that, rather, it is more beneficial to let US keep fighting, while they stay out of it—then why should you be surprised if Americans get rather irritated about it?
“How in the world is it un-American or treasonous to point out that this whole fiasco has panned out poorly, and that it would behoove us to stop”
Interesting. I am not sure if Gen Giap is still alive but I wonder how he would answer that question. I think I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.