US Attacks Iran 2026

[ken_sylvania]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/03 ... anon-trump

President Trump said on Tuesday that officials the United States had eyed as potential new leaders of Iran had been killed in the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign. As the war in the Middle East widened, he said that the worst outcome would be that whoever takes over Iran could be “as bad” as their predecessors.

Speaking to reporters at the start of a White House meeting with Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, Mr. Trump claimed that Iran had been about to attack its neighbors and Israel, and he made the decision to go to war to pre-empt that action. Officials with access to U.S. intelligence have said that Mr. Trump has exaggerated the immediacy of any threat Iran posed to the United States.

When asked about a worst-case scenario for the future of Iran, Mr. Trump said that it would probably be “you go through this and in five years you realize you put somebody in who’s no better.”

Asked who he would like to take over Iran, Mr. Trump gave a strikingly blunt answer. “Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” he said. “Now we have another group, they may be dead also, based on reports. So you have a third wave coming. Pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”

Oops.

So apparently what he's saying is either #1 the plan was to have a bunch of bad guys take over running the government or, #2, the attack killed a bunch of the good guys along with the bad guys.

At any rate he's certainly saying the quiet part out loud - and even though we all knew this is how war works it's just a bit chilling to hear the Commander in Chief say "Hey, we just don't know. All this terrible loss of life, money and property might not do a lick of good. Just have to wait and see!"

[mike]

And if you look into the background of that Reza Pahlavi guy, particularly the administration of his father the Shah, there's some really bad stuff there. Maybe that's not at all what Pahlavi represents, he was very young then; but it leaves you wondering who could actually accomplish the task of leading Iran into being a modern, more West-friendly Muslim nation like many of its neighbors.

But I don't think the American government actually cares that much about who in particular will lead the new Iran. Trump hasn't said anything before about who he would 'pick' as a potential new leader. I think the goal is basically what they are saying - destroy Iranian government and its ability to wage war, project power, and especially its missile and nuclear programs. Regime change is more a consequence rather than the direct goal. It's going to be up to the Iranian people. At some point Trump will pull the rug out from the operation, claim success, and brag about the end of the Iranian threat.

If this operation is not somehow a resounding success, and even if it is, it will probably be on the chalkboards of terror cells everywhere for the next fifty years as an incentive to conduct terror attacks within the US and against US interests across the world. Not that they haven't been doing this kind of thing anyway for the past decades.

[Judas Maccabeus]

There have been friendly fire in many wars. Accidents happen. Americans have shot Americans down before accidentally

IFF equipment has become quite sophisticated. I ausp they did not bother to get the Kuwaitis on board.

Kuwait has been anti Iran for a long time. There is no reason to think they aren’t “on board”.

By “on board” I mean informed of our operations in or near their airspace before the operation takes place. Otherwise, we will continue to have incidents like this.

What odds do you give of the president being at Dover when these casualties arrive there? Slim to none is my guess.

[Judas Maccabeus]

And if you look into the background of that Reza Pahlavi guy, particularly the administration of his father the Shah, there's some really bad stuff there. Maybe that's not at all what Pahlavi represents, he was very young then; but it leaves you wondering who could actually accomplish the task of leading Iran into being a modern, more West-friendly Muslim nation like many of its neighbors.

But I don't think the American government actually cares that much about who in particular will lead the new Iran. Trump hasn't said anything before about who he would 'pick' as a potential new leader. I think the goal is basically what they are saying - destroy Iranian government and its ability to wage war, project power, and especially its missile and nuclear programs. Regime change is more a consequence rather than the direct goal. It's going to be up to the Iranian people. At some point Trump will pull the rug out from the operation, claim success, and brag about the end of the Iranian threat.

If this operation is not somehow a resounding success, and even if it is, it will probably be on the chalkboards of terror cells everywhere for the next fifty years as an incentive to conduct terror attacks within the US and against US interests across the world. Not that they haven't been doing this kind of thing anyway for the past decades.

Shias never forget.

[mike]

Shias never forget.

This is simply from the political and worldly power perspective, but radical violent religious extremists like Osama bin Laden, maybe these mullahs who controlled Iran, and similar men understand nothing and learn from nothing that the West says or does to try to contain them, except for complete and utter destruction and domination. Take Afghanistan, where the US simply wasn't able or willing to do that, and the minute they left the area, the Taliban was right back in power. Maybe it is a kinder, gentler version, but I doubt it.

The US and Israel will always have something to fear from these people as long as they exist. Because it is an extreme, ingrained religious fervor of the same level of conviction that many of us Christians hold our faith, even though the principles and effects are very different. We would die for our faith. So would they, and they view martyrdom as something to be celebrated and even sought after in a way that even us Christians do not necessarily do.

People who view the world as many violent extremists do help us to understand the reason God ordains checks and balances in this world. There are no righteous players necessarily, although some are less evil than others. Taken together, the powers of this world simply function in such a way as to keep the world from descending into complete chaos or for whatever other purposes God has them in existence.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Shias never forget.

This is simply from the political and worldly power perspective, but radical violent religious extremists like Osama bin Laden, maybe these mullahs who controlled Iran, and similar men understand nothing and learn from nothing that the West says or does to try to contain them, except for complete and utter destruction and domination. Take Afghanistan, where the US simply wasn't able or willing to do that, and the minute they left the area, the Taliban was right back in power. Maybe it is a kinder, gentler version, but I doubt it.

The US and Israel will always have something to fear from these people as long as they exist. Because it is an extreme, ingrained religious fervor of the same level of conviction that many of us Christians hold our faith, even though the principles and effects are very different. We would die for our faith. So would they, and they view martyrdom as something to be celebrated and even sought after in a way that even us Christians do not necessarily do.

People who view the world as many violent extremists do help us to understand the reason God ordains checks and balances in this world. There are no righteous players necessarily, although some are less evil than others. Taken together, the powers of this world simply function in such a way as to keep the world from descending into complete chaos or for whatever other purposes God has them in existence.

They are still mourning the events of 680ad, I have seen this up close and you can feel the weight of grief.
From wiki pedis:

Husain refused on moral grounds to pledge his allegiance to the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya (r. 680–683) and was subsequently killed, alongside most of his male relatives and his small retinue, by the Umayyad army in the Battle of Karbala on Ashura 61 AH (680 CE). Among Shia Muslims, mourning for Husayn is seen as an act of protest against oppression, a spiritual struggle for God, and a means of seeking Husayn’s intercession in the afterlife. Ashura is observed through mourning gatherings, processions, and dramatic reenactments. In such ceremonies, Shia mourners strike their chests to share in the pain of Husayn. Extreme self-flagellation, often involving self-inflicted bloodshed, remains controversial among the Shia, condemned by many Shia clerics, and outlawed in some Shia communities. Ashura has sometimes been an occasion for sectarian violence, particularly against the Shia minority

[mike]

They are still mourning the events of 680ad, I have seen this up close and you can feel the weight of grief.
From wiki pedis:

Husain refused on moral grounds to pledge his allegiance to the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya (r. 680–683) and was subsequently killed, alongside most of his male relatives and his small retinue, by the Umayyad army in the Battle of Karbala on Ashura 61 AH (680 CE). Among Shia Muslims, mourning for Husayn is seen as an act of protest against oppression, a spiritual struggle for God, and a means of seeking Husayn’s intercession in the afterlife. Ashura is observed through mourning gatherings, processions, and dramatic reenactments. In such ceremonies, Shia mourners strike their chests to share in the pain of Husayn. Extreme self-flagellation, often involving self-inflicted bloodshed, remains controversial among the Shia, condemned by many Shia clerics, and outlawed in some Shia communities. Ashura has sometimes been an occasion for sectarian violence, particularly against the Shia minority

Fascinating. I can imagine the search for understanding the way they think is quite the rabbit hole.

[Judas Maccabeus]

They are still mourning the events of 680ad, I have seen this up close and you can feel the weight of grief.
From wiki pedis:

Husain refused on moral grounds to pledge his allegiance to the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya (r. 680–683) and was subsequently killed, alongside most of his male relatives and his small retinue, by the Umayyad army in the Battle of Karbala on Ashura 61 AH (680 CE). Among Shia Muslims, mourning for Husayn is seen as an act of protest against oppression, a spiritual struggle for God, and a means of seeking Husayn’s intercession in the afterlife. Ashura is observed through mourning gatherings, processions, and dramatic reenactments. In such ceremonies, Shia mourners strike their chests to share in the pain of Husayn. Extreme self-flagellation, often involving self-inflicted bloodshed, remains controversial among the Shia, condemned by many Shia clerics, and outlawed in some Shia communities. Ashura has sometimes been an occasion for sectarian violence, particularly against the Shia minority

Fascinating. I can imagine the search for understanding the way they think is quite the rabbit hole.

Shia theology is quite different than their Sunni counterparts. As different as Latin mass catholocs are from reformed.

[JohnH]

Shias never forget.

This is simply from the political and worldly power perspective, but radical violent religious extremists like Osama bin Laden, maybe these mullahs who controlled Iran, and similar men understand nothing and learn from nothing that the West says or does to try to contain them, except for complete and utter destruction and domination. Take Afghanistan, where the US simply wasn't able or willing to do that, and the minute they left the area, the Taliban was right back in power. Maybe it is a kinder, gentler version, but I doubt it.

The US and Israel will always have something to fear from these people as long as they exist. Because it is an extreme, ingrained religious fervor of the same level of conviction that many of us Christians hold our faith, even though the principles and effects are very different. We would die for our faith. So would they, and they view martyrdom as something to be celebrated and even sought after in a way that even us Christians do not necessarily do.

People who view the world as many violent extremists do help us to understand the reason God ordains checks and balances in this world. There are no righteous players necessarily, although some are less evil than others. Taken together, the powers of this world simply function in such a way as to keep the world from descending into complete chaos or for whatever other purposes God has them in existence.

They are still mourning the events of 680ad, I have seen this up close and you can feel the weight of grief.
From wiki pedis:

Husain refused on moral grounds to pledge his allegiance to the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya (r. 680–683) and was subsequently killed, alongside most of his male relatives and his small retinue, by the Umayyad army in the Battle of Karbala on Ashura 61 AH (680 CE). Among Shia Muslims, mourning for Husayn is seen as an act of protest against oppression, a spiritual struggle for God, and a means of seeking Husayn’s intercession in the afterlife. Ashura is observed through mourning gatherings, processions, and dramatic reenactments. In such ceremonies, Shia mourners strike their chests to share in the pain of Husayn. Extreme self-flagellation, often involving self-inflicted bloodshed, remains controversial among the Shia, condemned by many Shia clerics, and outlawed in some Shia communities. Ashura has sometimes been an occasion for sectarian violence, particularly against the Shia minority

Sad when people are trapped in pointless and false belief.

[barnhart]

They are still mourning the events of 680ad, I have seen this up close and you can feel the weight of grief.
From wiki pedis:

Husain refused on moral grounds to pledge his allegiance to the Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu'awiya (r. 680–683) and was subsequently killed, alongside most of his male relatives and his small retinue, by the Umayyad army in the Battle of Karbala on Ashura 61 AH (680 CE). Among Shia Muslims, mourning for Husayn is seen as an act of protest against oppression, a spiritual struggle for God, and a means of seeking Husayn’s intercession in the afterlife. Ashura is observed through mourning gatherings, processions, and dramatic reenactments. In such ceremonies, Shia mourners strike their chests to share in the pain of Husayn. Extreme self-flagellation, often involving self-inflicted bloodshed, remains controversial among the Shia, condemned by many Shia clerics, and outlawed in some Shia communities. Ashura has sometimes been an occasion for sectarian violence, particularly against the Shia minority

JM, do you have any insight into how shia Islam might relate differently to a power vacuum than sunni. In previous instances when the US removed Sunni leaders a more extremist element grew up to fill the space.