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 07/30/2026 5:48:33 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
At first glance, Iran's surprise missile strike on a US base in Jordan earlier this week appeared difficult to explain. The attack effectively ended the fragile pause in direct US-Iran fighting and prompted Washington to resume strikes inside Iran. It was also unusual.
If Tehran's priority had been a ceasefire, the strike is difficult to explain. But if Iranian leaders judge that a controlled confrontation could offer greater strategic leverage, the decision becomes more understandable.
One possible explanation is that Tehran believes that, despite its risks, a limited war serves its interests better.
Today, neither side appears ready for an all-out war. Washington has shown little appetite for a much broader regional conflict that could threaten energy infrastructure in the region, draw in more countries, push oil prices higher, and further stretch US military resources.
Iran may also try to avoid an all-out war because its weakened air defences, vulnerable industrial infrastructure and sanctions-constrained economy make rebuilding losses increasingly difficult and expensive.
Iran may have concluded that this creates room for a strategy based not on military victory but on sustained pressure.
A prolonged ceasefire under current conditions could actually leave Tehran in a weaker position. The US naval blockade of Iranian ports would continue, sanctions would remain, and Iran would still be largely excluded from international energy markets.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other oil and gas exporting countries in the region could gradually resume normal exports while Iran remained economically isolated.
A limited conflict could change this landscape for Iran. Although Iran is paying a heavy military and economic price, disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and, through the Houthis, pressure around Bab al-Mandab continue to affect global shipping, insurance costs and energy markets. Even limited uncertainty forces governments, shipowners and importers to pay attention to...
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
|
|
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 agree. Iran doesn’t have to win. They just have to drag this out until November.”
___________________________________________________________
Now that the Saudis and Houtis are at it, the war could easily spill into ‘27.
50 days of bombing and counting?
“I think he is counting on a regime change and doesn’t want to cripple the country to the extent necessary to defeat the mullahs.”
____________________________________________________________
I keep reading this stuff about regime change, but haven’t seen any of it actually happening in Iran. There’s no reason to believe any regime we found acceptable would be blown up by the fundamentalists who still control the country.
We’re fighting whoever is in charge of Iran and its forces. Doesn’t change the situation.
Unfortunately what’s stated in the article is only common sense. Weren’t they in an endless brutal war with Iraq where Iran was sending waves of children over minefields?
I doubt Trump is naive but he certainly acts like it sometimes.
Then again I guess we are exploring ways to topple that regime.
The Houthis need to learn what the words
Arc Light means.
“...elements in Iran think that they can close the Strait
at tolerable cost to their nation...”
-
Those ‘elements in Iran’ care not one whit
about the cost to their nation.
The text of the War Powers Resolution is clear. It doesn't require a negation by the Congress, the lack of authorization is enough to compel the President to exit hostilities:
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
Those conditions have not been met. The president is violating the law and the Constitution.
It’s ridiculous to say it’s unknowable. Of course air power alone can’t.
You knew? All this time you knew, and you didn't tell the president!
That would require an unlimited number of missiles and launchers. From where and how do they get them? Trump will ratchet up the bombing sites until they have no electricity, no infrastructure, and if we arm the masses?
There’s no reason to believe any regime we found acceptable would NOT be blown up by the fundamentalists who still control the country.
Regards,
We’re fighting Islam...
“...Limited war includes...”
.
“War” is declared by Congress. MSM calls it WAR.
I’d call it “conflict”.
Time would certainly be on our side if we deny the “exit strategy” premise. Why would we ever exit what we have conquered? We don’t need an exit strategy we need an ownership strategy.
“I think he is counting on a regime change and doesn’t want to cripple the country to the extent necessary to defeat the mullahs.”
Agreed that is the strategy.
It is classic expert “thread the needle” foreign policy.
It is the kind of thinking that creates one foreign policy disaster after another.
Some folks here think that if they engage in name calling they can fix it.
Sorry—that will not work in the real world.
Lol.
This isn’t just about the mullahs.
Why should we limit war?
What instances have the United States won at limited war?
What instances have the United States managed to limit death and destruction to Americans in Limited War?
Sure the Iranians ‘want’ limited war. War is about giving your enemy what they don’t want, and don’t expect.
“This fog of war explains Trump’s flip-flopping about bombing or negotiating. He clearly does not want to test our capacity to bomb Iran into submission.”
Trump tried peace. He tried talking. He tried deals, and he tried peace again.
“All I am saying, is give bombing a chance.”
Pull the ships up and shell the ports to nothing. Bomb everything, burn every well. Destroy every road and bridge except those leading to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Destroy the power, the water, then after telling them to evacuate, firebomb the cities. Send drones, big and small, everywhere to kill anything not headed east towards Pakistan/Afghanistan. Let every Iranian know the plan, the sequence, let them know as long as the IRGC is running the country it will progress unfettered. The people of Iran will be forced into choices: 1) Stay and die or Run away. 3) Get rid of the IRGC and restart negotiations. That should clear the fog of war.
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.