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 03/03/2026 2:16:05 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In a recent piece for National Review, Philip Klein astutely points out a fundamental difference between a potential confrontation with Iran and the quagmire that became the Iraq War: There will be no full-scale U.S. ground invasion under President Trump.
Klein argues that with Iran’s military already crippled by sanctions and precision strikes, and Trump unwilling to commit to a major land advance, this won’t devolve into another endless occupation. He’s right, but the analysis stops short of the full picture. A war with Iran, should it come to that amid escalating tensions, would be short, sharp, and transformative, not just because of avoided boots on the ground, but due to a confluence of strategic, economic, demographic, and diplomatic factors that simply didn’t exist in 2003.
Let’s unpack why Iran is primed for a rapid resolution, drawing lessons from Iraq’s pitfalls while highlighting America’s enhanced position today. First, consider Trump’s doctrine: maximum pressure, minimum entanglement.
Unlike the Bush administration’s ambitious nation-building in Iraq, which entangled U.S. forces in a decade-long counterinsurgency, Trump has made it crystal clear he refuses to be embroiled in protracted troop commitments.
His first term demonstrated this with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and targeted killings like that of Qasem Soleimani in 2020, which disrupted Iran’s proxy networks without escalating to occupation. In a second term, Trump would likely authorize overwhelming air and naval power, cruise missiles, drones, and cyber operations, to decapitate the regime’s leadership and nuclear infrastructure, all while keeping American casualties low. No rebuilding mosques policing tribal feuds; just neutralize the threat and let the chips fall. This approach echoes Reagan’s Libya strikes in 1986: Quick, punitive, and effective in deterring further aggression.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.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. |
It’s the Iranian people. They were never convicted Muslims. That’s why.
Do NOT discount the effect of Iran literally running out of water. They have no water. Their reservoirs are empty and their aquafers are drained. And what nation is in the neighborhood with expertise in desalinization??? That would be Israel. Food can be imported, water can’t.
Iranians and Afghanis are not Arabs.
That is delusional. The masses hate us and Israel. There is no scenario where they won't fight to the death to prevent a US friendly government from being installed.
That is especially true after a bomb killed 160 elementary aged girls and after the IDF just bombed a council that gathered to elect a new Ayatollah.
B 52 S NOW HITTING IRAN.
Bull
Source or link????
According to Iranian state media.
Open Sources Intel on X
It was an Iranian missile. We don't bomb schools.
Grok says it’s not true.
Not sure why. War monitor reports it also.
Instead fighting Iraq army, Bush should just wipe Sadaam and his buddies and appoint some kind of government there and pull out.
it was not the war, it was the follow up.
Ditto in Afghanistan. Instead putting our allies Northern Alliance in charge and let them take care about Taliban, we tried to build up some kind of democratic regime there.
.
CENTCOM listed B-52s as being “employed” in todays brief.
https://media.defense.gov/2026/Mar/03/2003882557/-1/-1/1/OPERATION-EPIC-FURY-FACT-SHEET-260303.PDF
They didn’t say how they were used. Might have been standoff weapons or even a maritime role rather than dropping JDAMs.
I’m reading that the mullahs core support from the Shias runs to 10% with another10 % sympathizers.
Doubtful Iraq will meddle in Iran - another huge difference.
Iran was meddling big time in Iraq.
the “surge” should have been how the war itself was done from the beginning. Troops were going in to a community, removing the terrorists and securing the community, then leaving and going to another area to remove the terrorists, but the terrorists would just fill back in where the troops left and the process kept repeating itself - no stabilization...chaos ensued that didn’t have to. That was unwise. One criticism that they were trying to do a “war on the cheap” proved to be correct...and ended up costing a lot more money as a result.
Iran has a more educated history and its population can probably more easily organize a new order within the territory, provided the IRGC loses its grip. Technology has also greatly advanced over the last 20+ years to allow for different strategies.
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.