US Attacks Iran 2026

[Bootstrap]

So far I’ve heard two different theories about how the situation in Iran might end.

1. A popular uprising.
The Iranian people rise up and overthrow the government. This time they would be unified around a shared vision for democracy. Unlike the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Despite the fact that they don't seem to agree on what they are for, just what they are against. But as our president recently noted, that’s difficult if the Revolutionary Guard simply guns down the protesters.

2. The “Venezuela model.”
Iran somehow ends up with a leader who will follow Western preferences. Apparently there were a few people in mind at various points, but some of them were killed along the way by mistake.

Both of these scenarios seem extremely unlikely as a long-term plan.

[JohnH]

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what a good plan is, since you don't like how things are currently being done?

[Soloist]

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what a good plan is, since you don't like how things are currently being done?

At this point anything less than full blown occupation along with a Germany ww2 style rebuild is going to result in long term instability and probable terrorists/insurgency.

If the US and Israel continue to bomb any form of government, and the government aligned continue to shoot protesters, we either end with a western backed rebellion like the last one we did… or collapse of a nation into militia forces with their zones of control. Either way, I’m extremely skeptical the two attackers will get the enriched uranium without boots on the ground.

Besides, let’s be pragmatic here, if a democratic freedom loving government rose up that hated Israel or the US or wanted nukes, it wouldn’t be allowed. Likewise if a dictatorship rose up that was willing to give up the uranium and comply with demands, the attackers would likely accept it.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what a good plan is, since you don't like how things are currently being done?

At this point anything less than full blown occupation along with a Germany ww2 style rebuild is going to result in long term instability and probable terrorists/insurgency.

If the US and Israel continue to bomb any form of government, and the government aligned continue to shoot protesters, we either end with a western backed rebellion like the last one we did… or collapse of a nation into militia forces with their zones of control. Either way, I’m extremely skeptical the two attackers will get the enriched uranium without boots on the ground.

Besides, let’s be pragmatic here, if a democratic freedom loving government rose up that hated Israel or the US or wanted nukes, it wouldn’t be allowed. Likewise if a dictatorship rose up that was willing to give up the uranium and comply with demands, the attackers would likely accept it.

Likley result=Somilia.

[Bootstrap]

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what a good plan is, since you don't like how things are currently being done?

Invading was not a good plan. Now the US has a mess on its hands and no good way out. I do not have a plan to get us out of this mess. I did not get us into this mess. Why are you asking ME for the plan?

The US is now doing its best to revive the phrase "US imperialistic aggression". To alienate our allies and convince the rest of the world that we are just as bad as Russia and China.

When they renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, they were sending a signal. Announcing regime change sends the same signal.

[ohio jones]

When they renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, they were sending a signal. Announcing regime change sends the same signal.

Hegseth: Gentlemen, we do not stop until unconditional surrender.
Bootstrap: What about the signal?
Hegseth: You've already had it.
J. Goldberg: We had one Signalgate, yes, a year ago. What about second Signalgate?
Bootstrap: I don't think he knows about second Signalgate, Jeff.

My very sincerest apologies to Tolkein.

[Szdfan]

Depends.

A Viking River Cruise is probably a lot cheaper than what we are paying for the Iran war.

Apparently, the war is costing the US almost a $1 billion a day.

Note that peace also costs in excess of $1 billion a day.

But still a better investment.

[Bootstrap]

When they renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, they were sending a signal. Announcing regime change sends the same signal.

Hegseth: Gentlemen, we do not stop until unconditional surrender.
Bootstrap: What about the signal?
Hegseth: You've already had it.
J. Goldberg: We had one Signalgate, yes, a year ago. What about second Signalgate?
Bootstrap: I don't think he knows about second Signalgate, Jeff.

My very sincerest apologies to Tolkein.

I don't think they know about second breakfast, Pip. And I don't think this line came from the books, so no need to apologize to Tolkien.

[JohnH]

But still a better investment.

I was referring to the amount of "peacetime" Department of Defense / Department of War spending (which is actually more than a billion a day).

[Szdfan]

But still a better investment.

I was referring to the amount of "peacetime" Department of Defense / Department of War spending (which is actually more than a billion a day).

Peacetime defense spending is one thing. War adds the cost of destroying things and replacing the weapons used to do it.