Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/23/2026 10:23:29 AM PDT by Jim Noble
I agree with everyone who says, "If you get into a war, fight to win" (or fight until victory).
What I don't see here is a plan, or even any promising ideas, about matching means and ends (regarding Iran, specifically).
What do you believe would be necessary to achieve victory, OK, lets take the words from President Trump, "unconditional surrender".
Would it be necessary to occupy the country and disarm their armed forces, for example? If yes, where would the forces come from to do that?
Remember, we sent 600,000 soldiers and Marines to liberate Kuwait, staged them from bases in friendly countries over seven months, to occupy a flat piece of land smaller than Connecticut.
Do you think we need LESS than that to achieve "unconditional surrender" of Iran? If yes, why do you think that?
If you think occupying Iran and disarming its armed forces is NOT necessary to achieve unconditional surrender, why do you think that?
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I don’t know what the plan is, but wouldn’t it be a good idea to not let iran know what we intend to do?
No one cares what you think.
I think Trump’s primary goal is the eliminate the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. It is not unconditional surrender. That comment is more traditional Trump bluster—and it’s rarely “helpful or constructive.”
I think in the end we will get a weak promise and lose regulation of their nuclear program.
It will be presented as them shutting down their program. Until it is clear they haven’t. Then were are right back where we started.
“No one cares what you think”
Right.
I posted it to find out what YOU think.
You can get unconditional surrender by blowing away their oil, water, and electric infrastructure. After that, it’d definitely take boots on the ground.
The regular Iranian army has no great love for the IRGC. A good chunk of boots would be theirs.
Send them to the Stone Age.
Drop the bridges.
Bomb the electricity turbines.
Repeat each time they rebuild.
Until they give up all the enriched uranium to us.
Forever, as necessary.
Stone Age.
Maybe? We’ve seen little indications of their willingness to do anything other the adopt “a wait and see” attitude.
The U.S. utility grid would be nearing collapse under the load generated to meet the demand from all the Twitter rants Donald Trump was posting online about how irresponsible and incompetent Yeb! is.
Seize or take out Kharg Island. Take out the pipelines that connect to Kharg. Take out the power plants and the electric grid. Take out the water systems. Take out the refineries, gas plants and pipelines. Take out the bridges, highways and airport runways. This is siege mentality. It doesn’t need boots on the ground.
Wouldn’t you given the lack of unity thanks to dems and RINOs?
It’s always worked for them in the past, just like w/their proxies. “Ceasefires” are generally a waste in my opinion. Good for clearing the field of the dead and wounded. Nothing else.
Here’s my plan: Quit messing around with negotiations; they will lead nowhere but a delay which Iran will use to shore up their defenses. Instead, have the IDF take Kharg Island (i.e., boots on the ground) and shut its distribution systems down, but don’t destroy them. When Iran runs out of funds, let the Iranian people decide if they want a regime change. The outcome puts someone in charge and then they can fire up Kharg again and use the funds to rebuild and give the Iranian people some hope. That’s a win for both sides.
Yes
“Seize or take out Kharg Island. Take out the pipelines that connect to Kharg. Take out the power plants and the electric grid. Take out the water systems. Take out the refineries, gas plants and pipelines. Take out the bridges, highways and airport runways. This is siege mentality. It doesn’t need boots on the ground.”
This makes sense to me. (But I’m no military planner.)
Well if you don’t see a plan then there must not be a plan.
Give the rest of the world a month to put 30,00 kamikaze drone boats in Strait, blow up anything in the water that leaves Iranian coast, take out all railroads, especially toward China and Russia by blowing up hundreds of miles of tracks,. If they escalate they’ve bought the response from our strategic power at a distance.
How do they get there in sufficient numbers? Star Trek transporter? There are military on that island, element of surprise way lost now. So probably more military now. I forget the number of civilians. Not all will be anti-regime.
Periodically, wipe out the ruling class with bombs. Sooner or later they will capitulate. No need for ground forces. Whether or not the straight of Hormuz is open depends on whether it is in our interest. And that is an interesting question.
The Italian aerial strategist General Guilio Douhet assured everyone of that in the 1920s. No need for armies or navies!
I never suggested they would simply walk onto the island. Any civilian still living on that island is a combatant and should dealt with accordingly. If they want to drop leaflets saying that anyone on the island is assumed to be a combatant and will be treated accordingly and, if they aren’t, they should leave now. I don’t think it would be that difficult to use air support to take out most of Kharg’s defenses and then use the IDF to take out the combatants. That battle is a lot easier than trying to take out the entire country by whatever means.
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.