I’m on your side here, but I would like to offer a different take.
After deposing Nicholas Maduro the Iranian people took to the streets for US support in getting rid of the Ayatollah.
We didn’t like Iran having nukes but while we knew they were building weapons we didn’t believe they were close enough to have accomplished it. Frankly, North Korea is closer.
We performed our (night I add perfectly executed) strikes to take out the regime. That should have been it and this is where our CIA leadership needs to be fired : Iran responded in a way that no one thought they would.
Bears repeating:
They attacked ally nations in response.
They lined up civilians on bridges and buildings and ensured the international press were present. (A war crime.)
Sitting down shipping through the strait was NOT military decided by either side. The insurance companies refused to insure any shipment. By default this is why shipping doesn’t happen in that region now. It has nothing to do with was. It’s financial risk.
While people are arguing over “who is shutting down the strait” President Trump has been repeating to a wall: “The strait is open!”. He is correct.
The only evil entity that has shut down the strait are the international maritime insurers. I’m willing to bet they are reporting certain ships to rogue forces in Oman and Iran so they can purposely be sunk to drive up costs.
The chances that the shipping disaster in the Gulf has anything to do with Iran or US efforts is less likely than financial incentives.
Although of course there was widespread opposition to the regime in Iran, how much of it was agitated/exacerbated by MI6/CIA in the lead up to this war ?
A couple of respectful disagreements, though. And I do mean respectful, as I get more correct wisdom from FR than just about anywhere else.
1) With the Korean War being long over (maybe not "officially" LOL) we wouldn't have had an ally to fight NK to stop them from building nukes. However against Iran, especially after the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, we do have an ally near Iran. And with the new Abraham Accords we had, as was confirmed, somewhat allies in the Arab nations. So I can see a military assessment reason to go after Iran to stop nukes that I haven't seen with NK.
2) As far as "We performed our (night I add perfectly executed) strikes to take out the regime. That should have been it and this is where our CIA leadership needs to be fired", again I respectfully disagree. Perhaps that was enough to take out the then current leader, and by extension, it would add unnecessary feature creep to the war mission if we were to try to make sure a good leader was next. If that's the point you're making, then as far as leadership take out, yes, I'm in agreement.
But in the broader context of stopping Iran from building nukes, that's not enough. See my post # 36 in this thread on just how quickly a nation can build nukes now. If the point is to keep Iran from building nukes, then neither the 2025 nuke site strike nor the 2026 killing of the Ayatollah is enough.