If the admin doesn't get Congressional buy-in by the time April turns to May, it's going to be in legal kimchi.
And seconded on the probably effects of "strategic bombing." The only times it's ever "worked" have been when the objective is to get the target to quit doing heinous stuff, and even then the track record isn't great--and, frankly, I'm not sure that we have the ammunition to blow Iran to hell, unless we're willing to uncan some sunshine, which we'd better not be.
Almost half of the representatives would say "piss off" because it's a Republican president (never mind this particular one), and there are Republicans (particularly of the "in name only" variety) who would also object for [edit: it being this particular Republican president].
Correct...when Bibi can do a speech in the US Congress a nd get a standing ovation you know who the real alligence is to... Congress is owned by AIPAC like some cheap IKEA furniture.
I don't think that was ever the plan. He's talked about 6-7 weeks... and I think that 60 days was a line he never wanted to even try and cross. Too much political fallout and division over it.
With regard to the War Powers act, no US President (9 total) have thought the law was Constitutional. They haven't been non-compliant, but so far it hasn't seen a court challenge. I think the President's plan is for a cessation of hostilities before the deadline.
Agreed. I think from the beginning the President looked at that 60 days as a hard line he wouldn't even try to cross. And if we are sticking to military and military infrastructure goals and not regime change, 6-7 weeks should hit those goals without a problem. I'm rooting for regime change, but how likely is it? I wish I could be more optimistic...
I am willing to hop aboard the good ship Salamander on this. But I am keeping my life vest on, as my confidence that the goalposts won’t shift is mighty low.
Yeah...I will not be shocked if we end up putting marines and paratroopers on Kharg Island--which, honestly, we could probably hold indefinitely without too much trouble.
The problem is that at that point it's a race between the regime collapsing for lack of funds and the regime managing to rebuild its oil export infrastructure, and I am not currently confident in our ability to keep them from doing the latter.
We need to also encourage our Gulf allies to move their export facilities from the Gulf to the Red Sea north of the BaM. I understand this is a huge endeavor that will take years, but it will diminish Iran's leverage over Hormuz.
I could see them doing this as opposed to blowing up oil and electric infrastructure, maybe the other islands, too, with a heavy concentration of Arab nation troops to garrison the facilities with a US security element and QRF in the region. That way we control their oil and the strait and can, therefore, set terms after we stop bombing. That would control their money to rebuild.
Also the "two to three weeks" time frame seems to foreclose that occupation option, which might be what he wants Iran to think.
We should be airdropping weapons and ammo to the civilians. Or maybe shipping them in from neighboring countries (and if we don’t have routes for that laid in, what the hell are we paying all those spooks for?). I’ve seen what look like drive-by shootings of Basij, but it will take more than that.
I say this because our intelligence has been too good. There is a limit to what Palantir, Planet Labs, etc. can do. We must have human sources on the ground.
I would like to think the Special Forces had been in there for a while doing that. Ditto the CIA. I think the CIA would be more effective. All the Special Forces guys I knew were big and burly. CIA types I saw were strong, but relatively dapper -- they'd blend in better.
When I was in Africa and Jordan we ere sharing quarters with CIA hired guns. They were all former military spec ops types. They would sit around at night pumping iron, grab ass ing and mixing powdered stuff in water.
While I usually had a scotch or two. Reminded me of my Vietnam days and working with Force Recon who were wild, necessary, animals. Loved them one and all.
I tend to agree with you on the issue of hitting civilian infrastructure. To add to your list the Germans’ resolve did not waver under USAAF and in particular RAF bombing in WW2.
But I wonder how the calculus changes in this situation since the Iranian people are seemingly more hostile to their own government than the other examples.
Choosing to hit relatively easy to rebuild electrical power generation (compared to oil) infrastructure indicates that at least we’re thinking about maintaining a standard of living in the future for the Iranian people.
But it will be risky if we go down that road.
And it seems Israel gets a vote in this war that we can’t always control.
The Nazi resolve never wavered until the Red Army was yards away from the bunker. The Nazis continued to fire V2 rockets at London even though they could not affect the outcome of the war. We are dealing with the same kind of Gotterdammerung fanaticism. They must be dragged out of the bunker.
Bombing those power stations are war crimes. And the White House press secretary, Levitt doesn’t know the difference between the words- “potential,” and “possible.”
Hydroelectric (but not necessarily dams & dykes that do not produce power) and nuclear generation are always off limits under international law. Power generation and supporting infrastructure can be targeted depending on circumstances. I am confident that our planners are taking that into account.
Germans were German, unlike today. Iran is a 20th century Frankenstein of Persia, Kurdistan, and Balochistan. Turkey would never let a Kurdistan government form and Pakistan would never let a Balochistan government form. I don't think it is ever possible to see what a Western society would call "steadfast resolve". Everything is transactional.
Certainly makes it difficult to claim we fight more morally than the rest of the world when the first thing we (or our lil' buddy The Greatest Ally) did was blow up the people trying to negotiate with us and a school full of little kids
When it came to style the presentation last night was nowhere near as good as the one he gave at the State of the Union address. But that’s not what is important.
What is important is that the President intends to finish the job which means an Iran that can’t and won’t threaten anyone. I was apprehensive about a “peace in our time” speech complete with a piece of paper from the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament. Last night’s speech allayed my concerns.
I sincerely hope the threat of attacking power plants and associated infrastructure is simply a bargaining chip. Attacking those targets would obviously have a devastating impact on the civilian population, which is precisely the people we are trying to help and would likely turn them against us. Frankly, I've always thought it was a mistake to make this threat, because those in power in Iran, whoever they may be, are unlikely to believe it will be carried out. An air attack on the oil facilities of Kharg Island would be a more effective and believable threat.
I don't get the impression anymore that we're trying to help the population. That's very disappointing to me. Of course it could be argued that's none of our business, only resolving the threat against us and our allies.
Electric grid is probably better from a humanitarian standpoint than (the markedly superior) OPLAN ENEMA. Though considering how poorly built many of Iran's dams allegedly are, it would take less weapons for ENEMA.
Appreciate your providing an exsum that gets straight to the heart of the matter. Agree with the main points and hope we are ready to begin dealing with the aftermath. The IRGC has nowhere to go. How the Iranian populace deals with that reality is an open (and likely most important) question. Also of note, the various "shocks to the rules based international order" are just beginning to be felt. So many things have happened in the very recent past that were deemed "things you just don't do" when I worked in an embassy...have happened. And, if you look at the results (so far) Venezuela, Cuba and now Iran (also things you "just don't do") are net positives...so far. A person I respect noted that the "establishment foreign policy community has reacted to all of this with a psychotic break". Given the "this has failed" pronouncements about Venezuela and Epic Fury in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm sure those invoking "international law" are about to find their voice soon. So far, net positive. The MIC "Primes" will get their beaks wet replenishing munitions. Time to assess and try to figure out why China appears to have gone full "purge" mode on their uniformed military and military industrial leadership and scientists. We do live in "interesting times". May they not get more "interesting".
I was only ever Embassy-adjacent (liaised/coordinated a bit while in uniform but never worked directly for the Foreign Service). However, your assessment of the foreign policy community’s conniptions over Mr. Trump’s foreign policy seems spot-on - they hate it purely because it’s simply not the way they have always done it rather than basing that view on any unbiased metrics.
That’s, of course, a generalization. There are many within that community whose opinions and experience I genuinely respect. Still, it’s an accurate generalization - supposed experts rarely respect criticism from supposed novices.
__________
China is a bit outside my wheelhouse (my experience is largely MENA). Please elaborate on this apparent “purge.”
Please forgive me, I was looking for something a bit more insightful than CNN or whatever filters through the Google algorithm.
Don’t break protocol, and I have no current need-to-know. If it’s more than just some corruption arrests (genuinely corrupt high-ranking Chinese officials isn’t any more a novel thing than is arresting the potentially-innocent for corruption), please broad-stroke it for me.
It's an open question. It's happened (still happening). Why? Sudden moral crisis? (Doubtful). Typical purge of aggressive personnel who might stage a coup or work for those who will? (More likely, but some of these people were close to Xi and appointed by him). Also goes into their military industrial complex. (Odd that). Wild card: Looking for the right attitudes to go or no go against Taiwan? Inquiring minds want to know...
I watched. And yes, Trump is no communicator. Great tactical and operational goals achieved but what was the strategic goal? If they still hate us, then Iranian intent hasn't changed.
As one Russian official said after the Soviet collapse, the West didn't beat them because of our soldiers or submarines. We beat them because we had the Beatles, and they had no answer to that.
And where are these Iranian ‘The Beatles’? It’s not like the Iranian people’s love for the regime is any greater than it was before. Although many in America have shown themselves to have imbibed a third-worldist mentality.
Or maybe not every bit of exec comms is meant to deliver novelty and excitement. Like in a marriage, sometimes the most important thing you can say is, "I'm still here. We're still on course. We're keeping on."
Delay tactic speech until two transiting fleets, one CVBG and another ARG arrive, @10 days. If IRGC/regime still breathing Kharg island, counter Houthi ops, on site nuclear inspection/demo with ON GROUND Marines and/ or airborn. Indigenous Iranians being "advised"/armed now, SOCAL exiles should step up and pitch in as well, new government structure outlined. In our homeland, anti-No Kings ops should be considered. TBD.
Good Morning CDR, I’m not here to toss “Poo”; rather here to reach out to “Turtler”, with your permission.
I want to discuss this braggadocio in “Trumpy Style”, with Turtler. Walking along a Quiet path or calmly sitting where I’m safe, it’s not okay to brag about destruction! I’m my opinion!
Neither is it okay to broadcast false hope of “Finished in a couple of weeks!”
From a broader picture, the Straight of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, Turtler, let’s discuss what is possible. I recall about 2007, I stood on the Saudi stage at their Embassy, Washington D.C. modeling an Iraqi long dress. Yemen was very active and permitted to be active by Saudi.
My point here is… Africa needs trade from those waters south of Djibouti. Kenya needs trade.
For Trumpy to say, “Take it! Use it”. Buy Oil from America, we have plenty!” Turtler, I need you to calm me down!
Let’s look at the price of jet fuel Trumpy is using to commute from Palm Beach to Joint Base Andrews to various Golf Courses and various Prayer Meetings and or Political fund raisers! Jet fuel is expensive!
Let’s look at Trumpy’s visit to our Supreme Court, a so called first by a sitting President. Challenged by two Justices, Trumpy retreated, tail
Between his legs. SCOTUS will advise by mid June.
Turtler, if you have something to share, please do! Respectfully, Nurse Jane
Turtler is an AI bot, crude because it has no conception of physics (specifically, that future events do not affect the present, only the fear of them does, which is a present factor).
And if he does show up, he'll tell you how Taylor Swift pulls the strings.
I'm not an AI Bot, JohnC. If I were, I would have gotten back to Nurse Jane far quicker and be far less coherent and accurate (probably on bar with you).
You on the other hand? You're a dishonest dumbfuck who misdated the start of the US Air War in Vietnam and LeMay's participation in things like Operation Farm Gate. So you can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Or ignore that and keep going on about how you know the Vietnam War better than the Communist Vietnamese War Leadership whose records were opened as a result of the Vietnamese equivalent of Perestroika letting us and foreign scholars into parts of their archives. Because apparently they viewed narrative manipulation and propaganda targeted at the US home front as being so vital it overrode things such as strict military logic for things like Khe Sahn, but you claim it had "zero effect" compared to Westmoreland's request for more troops in 1967-8 (nevermind how such propaganda also affected Westmoreland).
Who is right? JohnC the chronological illiterate who ignored LeMay's direct influence on the Vietnam War as Air Force Commander, or Vo Nguyen Giap, acknowledged expert at irregular warfare and military shogun of the communist Vietnamese government, and Lewis Sorley, Vietnam War Veteran and acknowledged historical maestro?
Thank you for proving my assessment that you are a bot.
How so? Simple. You cite communist self-assessments of their propaganda's efficacy as proof that their efforts were effective. Self-assessment is irrelevant. Americans were not affected by North Vietnamese propaganda. Did Jane Fonda and the Students for a Democratic Society (I'll toss in the Weathermen, too) parrot their spiel? Sure. Did it have any affect on American society, or the debate we were having on the war? No. Westmoreland saying "gimme more" did.
Heck, OUR self-assessments showed that we had wiped out the North Vietnamese ten times over. How did that assessment affect them? What?! You say "None.!" How can that be?
A real human being would know those things: Self-assessment is irrelevant to the other guy (might explain the enemy's actions and have some intel value, but that's it), and; Enemy propaganda did not affect how we felt about the war.
A bot, however, especially a crude one with no perspective in the model and limited logical reasoning, would think that it did.
So one can think that he's the handsomest, sauvist guy in the bar, but if the girls go home with someone else, his "self-assessment" is meaningless and irrelevant.
Khe Sanh doesn't enter into it. Neither did the communist propaganda.
So do yourself a favor, pretend you're a submariner, and rig for ultraquiet.
"Thank you for proving my assessment that you are a bot."
So in addition to all the other stuff you don't know, you don't know how to go about assessing if a bot is active or not. Splendid. This is why people like me can regularly out-earn as well as out-argue people like you.
It also tends not to be that hard to check bot work, especially given the state of LLMs at present.
"How so? Simple. You cite communist self-assessments of their propaganda's efficacy as proof that their efforts were effective."
Pay attention people, because this is where we see one of the natural hunting strategies of the dishonest sophist shithead.
Firstly: the Goal Post Move. In the original discussion I came in was largely about the effects of communist propaganda and demoralization on the US war effort and adverse framing by politicians and the press, partially influenced by but not exclusively from communist propaganda.
It's really hard to deny this unless you are flat out delusional, since we can now attest that many of the most valuable public sector sources used by international media at the time were either flat out working for the Communists (like Pham Xuan An) and we can trace a direct through line, or were partially influenced or subverted by communist disinformation (such as the idea that there were no North Vietnamese troops in the South during the early 1960s, echoed by MLK). It also played a significant role in shaping public opinion. But that wasn't the original point: it was the degree to which political and press framing of the war helped cause it to be lost, and that's even easier to prove given things like Cronkite.
But JohnC did anyway. And got clobbered precisely because we're not reliant on only Communist self-assessments.
Secondly: Communist self-assessments are still an important historical primary source, very much unlike your "Dude Trust Me Bro." This remains the case even if - and sometimes especially if - they were false or can't be corroborated with other lines of evidence (for instance, Ho and co drinking their own hype about how the South Vietnamese populace was ready to rise up in the mid 1950s when they very much weren't, leading to the Viet Cong overreaching and getting beaten down by Diem). But in this case we very much can, especially when we compare things like the Times, Le Monde, and Cronkite echoing similar lines that ultimately trace back to the likes of Hanoi or kindred spirits like Sartre, or simply pacifists.
Of course acknowledging that means you also don't get to completely ignore a line of evidence that guts your claims that the likes of SDS had "zero" impact on the war. But that's a you problem.
"Self-assessment is irrelevant"
.... said absolutely nobody fucking sane or self-aware, ever.
"Americans were not affected by North Vietnamese propaganda."
Pretending the likes of 'Prairie Fire' does not exist and did not lead to people getting killed and hurt does not make it so.
"Did Jane Fonda and the Students for a Democratic Society (I'll toss in the Weathermen, too) parrot their spiel? Sure."
Contradiction. Much as I am loathe to say it, Fonda, SDS, the Weathermen, and a host of other malcontents like the Black Panther Party were "Americans", in as much as they almost universally held American passports and lived and operated in America. And their actions and claims were broadcast heavily in America.
And now we know Hanoi's spiel was involved in it.
Now did most Americans believe everything they claimed? No, far from it.
But even those that believed none of it had to deal with radicalized political terrorists and protestors doing everything from anti-war sit ins to bombings.
And many were inclined to believe some of it. So you've just conceded my point while trying to deny it, obfuscating as if sophistry is a good substitute for the facts.
Be glad I'm not actually a bot, because that would mean you've gotten out-argued by a bot. But that wouldn't be too surprising since you just out-argued yourself.
"Did it have any affect on American society, or the debate we were having on the war? No."
Peter Paige, Officer Edward O'Grady, Officer Waverly Brown, and literally hundreds of others killed in domestic anti-American terrorism on US soil during the Vietnam War and its aftermath could not be reached for comment.
Your Logical Fallacy is the No True Scotsman. Or No True American, as the case may be.
"Westmoreland saying "gimme more" did."
It isn't an Either/Or, sophist liar. Both did.
But notably Westmoreland's increasing demands for troops were motivated not just by the heat of the war or his own incompetence, but also communist and defeatist media framing.
"Heck, OUR self-assessments showed that we had wiped out the North Vietnamese ten times over."
And guess what? The communist assessments actually agree to a large extent. The PAVN and its sister forces suffered something like 400% casualty rates over the duration of what they refer to as the "American War" and the Viet Cong got almost obliterated at least twice (the first time after Tet in 1968, and the second time in 1971).
It's just that they continued to regenerate rates faster than we could consistently kill, capture, or turncoat them due to heavy conscription. That coupled with hideous overclaiming from the likes of us or the ROK passing off either unarmed civilians or unrelated paramilitaries (like Buddhist anti-government rebels) as Communists gave the impression the communists had far more resources than they actually did.
This is also why self-assessments can't be entirely ignored, and need to be compared to other lines of data. And why Hanoi's analysis of its own war conduct is informative because they have decently accurate assessments of their own losses and the amount of recruiting necessary to continue fighting.
But you're going to ignore all this precisely because it not only indicates you don't know the subject, but it gores your claim.
"How did that assessment affect them? What?! You say "None.!" How can that be?"
Actually it affected them plenty, ESPECIALLY since they had better access to our own assessments than we did theirs, and they could shape it. Which is one reason they would often make a point of either lulling us into false senses of security before attacking ("what? I thought this sector was secure!" see: Hue on Tet) or carrying on the sight to give the impression they had far deeper reserves than they actually did in order to try and induce war weariness ("They just keep coming! It's another Dien Bien Phu!" ala Khe Sahn).
And why when they could confirm our assessments were for a change decently accurate and couldn't be influenced, they generally found things to be really really bad. Like after Linebacker.
Which is again why it is important to know their self-assessments and ours, and how those had effects on both.
But you're not equipped to do that and even less inclined to try, because the results would clown you even more than your two second reversal trying to pretend Fonda and the SDS were not Americans and had no impact on American culture would.
"A real human being would know those things:"
If you want to tell Lewis Sorley's publishers that he is an AI Bot and they are committing fraud claiming otherwise, go ahead.
I'll pop some popcorn and laugh at the defamation suit.
Otherwise?
You're an idiot who quite literally contradicted themselves inside of two sentences. You fucked up when USAF air operations in Vietnam began and how LeMay not only helped plan their early stages, but was partially canned as a result of them. Your credibility should be just about zero to anybody that bothers reading this through.
"Self-assessment is irrelevant to the other guy (might explain the enemy's actions and have some intel value, but that's it),"
'Self-assessment is irrelevant to the other guy (except it might not).'
Truly peak logic.
"and; Enemy propaganda did not affect how we felt about the war."
Except it very obviously did.
And to quote Tonto, "Who is we, Kemosabe?"
"A bot, however, especially a crude one with no perspective in the model and limited logical reasoning, would think that it did."
As would the defining historians of the period. But what do they know?
"So one can think that he's the handsomest, sauvist guy in the bar, but if the girls go home with someone else, his "self-assessment" is meaningless and irrelevant."
To quote the Spartans: If.
But if someone's self assessment includes lessons learned and ways to try and improve the ability to get girls to go home with him, then that self-assessment is not meaningless or irrelevant.
And that, JohnC, is how you get shown up by Henry Kissinger, He of the Troll Face, Strange Accent, and Moral Bankruptcy, at the local bar.
"Khe Sanh doesn't enter into it. Neither did the communist propaganda."
So one of the defining battles of the Vietnam War doesn't matter to the Vietnam War or how the American public perceived it.
Truly brilliant insights.
"So do yourself a favor, pretend you're a submariner, and rig for ultraquiet."
I don't do myself any favors by letting a sophist shitweasel insult me and lie about history without riposte.
And your conduct has given me absolutely no reason to want to do you any favors.
The fact that you're outright trivializing people who suffered, died, or were wounded as a result of this war and communist agitprop or unrelated urban legends is just the icing on the cake. Especially since not all those killed as a result of those things died in Indochina itself. Hence my name dropping of the Brinks Robbery victims.
Speaking of, care to guess where the next generation of Boudin is and what he's trying to do?
So don't tell me communist propaganda had no effect on the war or American society. We can quite literally see how it did and does today.
I admit it'll be hard to have as great an effect on your credibility as you contradicting yourself in neighboring sentences (and sometimes in the same exact sentence) does while claiming the Communist Vietnamese archives and Lewis Sorley are all AI Bots, but I will make the effort.
Why you want to fantasize that you were out-debated by a bot rather than another human is beyond me, but it's the least of your problems JohnC.
The mentally ill sometimes have what is called "pressured speech," where the words flow out like from a fire hose. I would figure we are looking at talk to text.
My apologies Nurse Jane, I did see your prior post and began writing a reply, but have been distracted. Including by JohnC and their particular flavor of dishonesty.
I am sorry that my AI ChatBot LLM processing was taken up by then, and I'll try and get back to you soon.
If the admin doesn't get Congressional buy-in by the time April turns to May, it's going to be in legal kimchi.
And seconded on the probably effects of "strategic bombing." The only times it's ever "worked" have been when the objective is to get the target to quit doing heinous stuff, and even then the track record isn't great--and, frankly, I'm not sure that we have the ammunition to blow Iran to hell, unless we're willing to uncan some sunshine, which we'd better not be.
Can there be congressional buy-in?
Almost half of the representatives would say "piss off" because it's a Republican president (never mind this particular one), and there are Republicans (particularly of the "in name only" variety) who would also object for [edit: it being this particular Republican president].
You cannot get buy-in from Congress to pay TSA workers.
Indeed. Congress can not agree to do things that 80% of the American citizenship (never mind the voters) want done.
Who is it they represent?
No one outside the radius of the DC Beltway.
The Tel Aviv stuff is such a red herring.
Save your Candace Owens Tucker Carlson click bait stuff for someone else...
You can distract them from worrying about chemtrails.
Correct...when Bibi can do a speech in the US Congress a nd get a standing ovation you know who the real alligence is to... Congress is owned by AIPAC like some cheap IKEA furniture.
Congress made it harder to get through an airport, than to cross our borders.
At least a third represent the Chinese government.
There has to be, if he wants to keep this going for more than sixty days.
You have way too much faith in the War Powers Act.
I'm aware of the WPA limitation, my question is about whether it's even possible in the current political environment.
If they're able to stick to the stated schedule, it won't be an issue anyway. Seven weeks is 49 days.
And yes, I'm aware of the weight "if" is bearing, in the above sentence. Atlas himself would probably say "screw that!". :P
I don't think that was ever the plan. He's talked about 6-7 weeks... and I think that 60 days was a line he never wanted to even try and cross. Too much political fallout and division over it.
You won't need Congressional buy-in until January 2027 when control shifts from Republicans to Dems.
He's on a sixty-day clock before he has to get congressional approval.
Do you really believe the Republican Congress/Senate are going to enforce the WPA?
All that's needed is enough defections to give a majority in the House and 2/3 in the Senate.
The Speaker won't even allow it to come to a vote in the House, even if there is a slight majority.
Getting 60 Senators onboard to vote against a president during wartime along partisan lines isn't happening.
I would not be too quick on measuring the drapes in Speaker’s office.
I'm mentally prepared for a Dem takeover in November. A lot can happen between then and now, but...
Here's my prediction. GOP +5 House. +1 Senate. +2 Governors. If I am wrong, I will just have to go back to CNN as an expert commentator.
If you're wrong, that would be the number 1 bullet on your resume for being hired as an expert commentator at CNN.
Fingers crossed...
With regard to the War Powers act, no US President (9 total) have thought the law was Constitutional. They haven't been non-compliant, but so far it hasn't seen a court challenge. I think the President's plan is for a cessation of hostilities before the deadline.
Agreed. I think from the beginning the President looked at that 60 days as a hard line he wouldn't even try to cross. And if we are sticking to military and military infrastructure goals and not regime change, 6-7 weeks should hit those goals without a problem. I'm rooting for regime change, but how likely is it? I wish I could be more optimistic...
What Congressional warrant authorized Operation Southern Watch?
I am willing to hop aboard the good ship Salamander on this. But I am keeping my life vest on, as my confidence that the goalposts won’t shift is mighty low.
Yeah...I will not be shocked if we end up putting marines and paratroopers on Kharg Island--which, honestly, we could probably hold indefinitely without too much trouble.
The problem is that at that point it's a race between the regime collapsing for lack of funds and the regime managing to rebuild its oil export infrastructure, and I am not currently confident in our ability to keep them from doing the latter.
We need to also encourage our Gulf allies to move their export facilities from the Gulf to the Red Sea north of the BaM. I understand this is a huge endeavor that will take years, but it will diminish Iran's leverage over Hormuz.
That will put said facilities in Saudi territory, and I don't see Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, or Kuwait being super enthused about that.
I could see them doing this as opposed to blowing up oil and electric infrastructure, maybe the other islands, too, with a heavy concentration of Arab nation troops to garrison the facilities with a US security element and QRF in the region. That way we control their oil and the strait and can, therefore, set terms after we stop bombing. That would control their money to rebuild.
Also the "two to three weeks" time frame seems to foreclose that occupation option, which might be what he wants Iran to think.
https://time.com/article/2026/04/02/trump-iran-off-ramp/
Well. This isn’t reassuring, if true.
Thanks for the even-handed summary. I didn't watch the speech. Glad that reading your 4-minute piece saved me that.
We should be airdropping weapons and ammo to the civilians. Or maybe shipping them in from neighboring countries (and if we don’t have routes for that laid in, what the hell are we paying all those spooks for?). I’ve seen what look like drive-by shootings of Basij, but it will take more than that.
I am willing to bet that the Green Berets are on the ground forming a resistance.
What are the Kurds doing?
Probably what the Kurds are always doing - fighting the Turks, Arabs and Persians.
From my time in Turkey, sadly, as always, the Kurds will also be fighting each other.
I don’t think CENTCOM wanted a ground force they couldn’t control?
What you want vs. what you get.
I say this because our intelligence has been too good. There is a limit to what Palantir, Planet Labs, etc. can do. We must have human sources on the ground.
I would like to think the Special Forces had been in there for a while doing that. Ditto the CIA. I think the CIA would be more effective. All the Special Forces guys I knew were big and burly. CIA types I saw were strong, but relatively dapper -- they'd blend in better.
Can't say. The only agents I knew looked like analysts. None looked like Sean Connery.
You obviously moved in better circles than I did.
Most of my career was in DC. I did spend a little time on some gray floating objects.
When I was in Africa and Jordan we ere sharing quarters with CIA hired guns. They were all former military spec ops types. They would sit around at night pumping iron, grab ass ing and mixing powdered stuff in water.
While I usually had a scotch or two. Reminded me of my Vietnam days and working with Force Recon who were wild, necessary, animals. Loved them one and all.
I never did anything that exciting. But I did read the reports from you and the “contractors.”
You insult the Mike Vinings of the world.
Sorry.
Mike Vining may be a master of explosives but I am not sure if he could shoot the cork off a bottle of champagne with a Walther PPK.
That is so Jan 2026
I tend to agree with you on the issue of hitting civilian infrastructure. To add to your list the Germans’ resolve did not waver under USAAF and in particular RAF bombing in WW2.
But I wonder how the calculus changes in this situation since the Iranian people are seemingly more hostile to their own government than the other examples.
Choosing to hit relatively easy to rebuild electrical power generation (compared to oil) infrastructure indicates that at least we’re thinking about maintaining a standard of living in the future for the Iranian people.
But it will be risky if we go down that road.
And it seems Israel gets a vote in this war that we can’t always control.
The Nazi resolve never wavered until the Red Army was yards away from the bunker. The Nazis continued to fire V2 rockets at London even though they could not affect the outcome of the war. We are dealing with the same kind of Gotterdammerung fanaticism. They must be dragged out of the bunker.
Just blow up the damn bunker. Won’t be any Neurenberg trials anyway. Let the Irani’s take care of that
Bombing those power stations are war crimes. And the White House press secretary, Levitt doesn’t know the difference between the words- “potential,” and “possible.”
Hydroelectric (but not necessarily dams & dykes that do not produce power) and nuclear generation are always off limits under international law. Power generation and supporting infrastructure can be targeted depending on circumstances. I am confident that our planners are taking that into account.
I believe your confidence is misplaced.
Perhaps it would be wiser to hit electric transmission facilities instead of the power plants themselves, essentially throwing an OFF switch.
Iranian regime is removed, we throw the switch ON with a few weeks help.
Germans were German, unlike today. Iran is a 20th century Frankenstein of Persia, Kurdistan, and Balochistan. Turkey would never let a Kurdistan government form and Pakistan would never let a Balochistan government form. I don't think it is ever possible to see what a Western society would call "steadfast resolve". Everything is transactional.
Certainly makes it difficult to claim we fight more morally than the rest of the world when the first thing we (or our lil' buddy The Greatest Ally) did was blow up the people trying to negotiate with us and a school full of little kids
When it came to style the presentation last night was nowhere near as good as the one he gave at the State of the Union address. But that’s not what is important.
What is important is that the President intends to finish the job which means an Iran that can’t and won’t threaten anyone. I was apprehensive about a “peace in our time” speech complete with a piece of paper from the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament. Last night’s speech allayed my concerns.
I sincerely hope the threat of attacking power plants and associated infrastructure is simply a bargaining chip. Attacking those targets would obviously have a devastating impact on the civilian population, which is precisely the people we are trying to help and would likely turn them against us. Frankly, I've always thought it was a mistake to make this threat, because those in power in Iran, whoever they may be, are unlikely to believe it will be carried out. An air attack on the oil facilities of Kharg Island would be a more effective and believable threat.
I don't get the impression anymore that we're trying to help the population. That's very disappointing to me. Of course it could be argued that's none of our business, only resolving the threat against us and our allies.
I think the claim of regime change is over-egging it, but we'll learn in D+5years.
I still think this is the Israeli tail wagging the American dog, but that's not germaine to the speech last might.
Comment section over/under is 250. Get your bets in now.
Electric grid is probably better from a humanitarian standpoint than (the markedly superior) OPLAN ENEMA. Though considering how poorly built many of Iran's dams allegedly are, it would take less weapons for ENEMA.
Appreciate your providing an exsum that gets straight to the heart of the matter. Agree with the main points and hope we are ready to begin dealing with the aftermath. The IRGC has nowhere to go. How the Iranian populace deals with that reality is an open (and likely most important) question. Also of note, the various "shocks to the rules based international order" are just beginning to be felt. So many things have happened in the very recent past that were deemed "things you just don't do" when I worked in an embassy...have happened. And, if you look at the results (so far) Venezuela, Cuba and now Iran (also things you "just don't do") are net positives...so far. A person I respect noted that the "establishment foreign policy community has reacted to all of this with a psychotic break". Given the "this has failed" pronouncements about Venezuela and Epic Fury in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm sure those invoking "international law" are about to find their voice soon. So far, net positive. The MIC "Primes" will get their beaks wet replenishing munitions. Time to assess and try to figure out why China appears to have gone full "purge" mode on their uniformed military and military industrial leadership and scientists. We do live in "interesting times". May they not get more "interesting".
" The IRGC has nowhere to go."
--------------------------------------------------
Neither does Hamas, but they're still hanging on. Thank God we have the Second Amendment. Makes all the difference.
I was only ever Embassy-adjacent (liaised/coordinated a bit while in uniform but never worked directly for the Foreign Service). However, your assessment of the foreign policy community’s conniptions over Mr. Trump’s foreign policy seems spot-on - they hate it purely because it’s simply not the way they have always done it rather than basing that view on any unbiased metrics.
That’s, of course, a generalization. There are many within that community whose opinions and experience I genuinely respect. Still, it’s an accurate generalization - supposed experts rarely respect criticism from supposed novices.
__________
China is a bit outside my wheelhouse (my experience is largely MENA). Please elaborate on this apparent “purge.”
Plenty of open source stuff out there; some behind paywalls. Even CNN has reported on it: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/25/china/csis-report-china-military-purges-intl-hnk-ml . Arresting high ranking Chinese officials for corruption is like handing out speeding tickets at Daytona...not original on my part, BTW. (-;
Please forgive me, I was looking for something a bit more insightful than CNN or whatever filters through the Google algorithm.
Don’t break protocol, and I have no current need-to-know. If it’s more than just some corruption arrests (genuinely corrupt high-ranking Chinese officials isn’t any more a novel thing than is arresting the potentially-innocent for corruption), please broad-stroke it for me.
It's an open question. It's happened (still happening). Why? Sudden moral crisis? (Doubtful). Typical purge of aggressive personnel who might stage a coup or work for those who will? (More likely, but some of these people were close to Xi and appointed by him). Also goes into their military industrial complex. (Odd that). Wild card: Looking for the right attitudes to go or no go against Taiwan? Inquiring minds want to know...
Fair enough
I'm hoping there's some communicating with Kim to prevent a nuke delivery to Iran (or accounting of what's been delivered).
As for consequences beyond our border, Trump's demolition of the 'rules based order' Hillary and the Davos folks liked to talk about is well underway ...https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/01/eu-leaders-utterly-bewildered-at-energy-vulnerabilities-now-evident/
There is no rules based order. Strong nations do what they will. Weak nations suffer what they must.
I watched. And yes, Trump is no communicator. Great tactical and operational goals achieved but what was the strategic goal? If they still hate us, then Iranian intent hasn't changed.
They don't have to like, only fear.
The Soviets used fear. They failed.
As one Russian official said after the Soviet collapse, the West didn't beat them because of our soldiers or submarines. We beat them because we had the Beatles, and they had no answer to that.
> the Beatles
Kek. No, boomer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7wqQwa-TU
And where are these Iranian ‘The Beatles’? It’s not like the Iranian people’s love for the regime is any greater than it was before. Although many in America have shown themselves to have imbibed a third-worldist mentality.
I watched the speech and felt that I hadn't learned anything more than I'd heard before. Maybe I was just tired.
It was a summary of all that has been said up till now.
Which is not a bad thing. It puts a clear position on the policy from the head guy.
And if nothing else he can abuse reporters for not listening to what he said in the speech.
Or maybe not every bit of exec comms is meant to deliver novelty and excitement. Like in a marriage, sometimes the most important thing you can say is, "I'm still here. We're still on course. We're keeping on."
Delay tactic speech until two transiting fleets, one CVBG and another ARG arrive, @10 days. If IRGC/regime still breathing Kharg island, counter Houthi ops, on site nuclear inspection/demo with ON GROUND Marines and/ or airborn. Indigenous Iranians being "advised"/armed now, SOCAL exiles should step up and pitch in as well, new government structure outlined. In our homeland, anti-No Kings ops should be considered. TBD.
That's starting to sound like Iraq.
Just pointing out time lines and some tactical thinking, not necessarily recommending it.
Prithy, how does "no-Kings" ops enter into any equation in any way, anywhere?
IF, if boots on ground, dark money funded "NO KINGS" will escalate.
Not sure No Kings is dark money funded. but no matter. If Trump puts boots on teh ground, No Kings will be the least of his worries.
I dunno. Those elderly boomers out in the city nearest my neck of the literal woods don't look like they've got many more Screechstocks left in 'em.
Despite the calumny and projections the strait is open, right?
Iran is N Vietnam time 5. Trump don’t have 15 years…..
Good Morning CDR, I’m not here to toss “Poo”; rather here to reach out to “Turtler”, with your permission.
I want to discuss this braggadocio in “Trumpy Style”, with Turtler. Walking along a Quiet path or calmly sitting where I’m safe, it’s not okay to brag about destruction! I’m my opinion!
Neither is it okay to broadcast false hope of “Finished in a couple of weeks!”
From a broader picture, the Straight of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, Turtler, let’s discuss what is possible. I recall about 2007, I stood on the Saudi stage at their Embassy, Washington D.C. modeling an Iraqi long dress. Yemen was very active and permitted to be active by Saudi.
My point here is… Africa needs trade from those waters south of Djibouti. Kenya needs trade.
For Trumpy to say, “Take it! Use it”. Buy Oil from America, we have plenty!” Turtler, I need you to calm me down!
Let’s look at the price of jet fuel Trumpy is using to commute from Palm Beach to Joint Base Andrews to various Golf Courses and various Prayer Meetings and or Political fund raisers! Jet fuel is expensive!
Let’s look at Trumpy’s visit to our Supreme Court, a so called first by a sitting President. Challenged by two Justices, Trumpy retreated, tail
Between his legs. SCOTUS will advise by mid June.
Turtler, if you have something to share, please do! Respectfully, Nurse Jane
Turtler is an AI bot, crude because it has no conception of physics (specifically, that future events do not affect the present, only the fear of them does, which is a present factor).
And if he does show up, he'll tell you how Taylor Swift pulls the strings.
I'm not an AI Bot, JohnC. If I were, I would have gotten back to Nurse Jane far quicker and be far less coherent and accurate (probably on bar with you).
You on the other hand? You're a dishonest dumbfuck who misdated the start of the US Air War in Vietnam and LeMay's participation in things like Operation Farm Gate. So you can sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Or ignore that and keep going on about how you know the Vietnam War better than the Communist Vietnamese War Leadership whose records were opened as a result of the Vietnamese equivalent of Perestroika letting us and foreign scholars into parts of their archives. Because apparently they viewed narrative manipulation and propaganda targeted at the US home front as being so vital it overrode things such as strict military logic for things like Khe Sahn, but you claim it had "zero effect" compared to Westmoreland's request for more troops in 1967-8 (nevermind how such propaganda also affected Westmoreland).
Who is right? JohnC the chronological illiterate who ignored LeMay's direct influence on the Vietnam War as Air Force Commander, or Vo Nguyen Giap, acknowledged expert at irregular warfare and military shogun of the communist Vietnamese government, and Lewis Sorley, Vietnam War Veteran and acknowledged historical maestro?
Truly a question for the ages!
Dear Bot:
Thank you for proving my assessment that you are a bot.
How so? Simple. You cite communist self-assessments of their propaganda's efficacy as proof that their efforts were effective. Self-assessment is irrelevant. Americans were not affected by North Vietnamese propaganda. Did Jane Fonda and the Students for a Democratic Society (I'll toss in the Weathermen, too) parrot their spiel? Sure. Did it have any affect on American society, or the debate we were having on the war? No. Westmoreland saying "gimme more" did.
Heck, OUR self-assessments showed that we had wiped out the North Vietnamese ten times over. How did that assessment affect them? What?! You say "None.!" How can that be?
A real human being would know those things: Self-assessment is irrelevant to the other guy (might explain the enemy's actions and have some intel value, but that's it), and; Enemy propaganda did not affect how we felt about the war.
A bot, however, especially a crude one with no perspective in the model and limited logical reasoning, would think that it did.
So one can think that he's the handsomest, sauvist guy in the bar, but if the girls go home with someone else, his "self-assessment" is meaningless and irrelevant.
Khe Sanh doesn't enter into it. Neither did the communist propaganda.
So do yourself a favor, pretend you're a submariner, and rig for ultraquiet.
Not-So-Dear Dishonest Fuckhead:
"Thank you for proving my assessment that you are a bot."
So in addition to all the other stuff you don't know, you don't know how to go about assessing if a bot is active or not. Splendid. This is why people like me can regularly out-earn as well as out-argue people like you.
It also tends not to be that hard to check bot work, especially given the state of LLMs at present.
"How so? Simple. You cite communist self-assessments of their propaganda's efficacy as proof that their efforts were effective."
Pay attention people, because this is where we see one of the natural hunting strategies of the dishonest sophist shithead.
Firstly: the Goal Post Move. In the original discussion I came in was largely about the effects of communist propaganda and demoralization on the US war effort and adverse framing by politicians and the press, partially influenced by but not exclusively from communist propaganda.
It's really hard to deny this unless you are flat out delusional, since we can now attest that many of the most valuable public sector sources used by international media at the time were either flat out working for the Communists (like Pham Xuan An) and we can trace a direct through line, or were partially influenced or subverted by communist disinformation (such as the idea that there were no North Vietnamese troops in the South during the early 1960s, echoed by MLK). It also played a significant role in shaping public opinion. But that wasn't the original point: it was the degree to which political and press framing of the war helped cause it to be lost, and that's even easier to prove given things like Cronkite.
But JohnC did anyway. And got clobbered precisely because we're not reliant on only Communist self-assessments.
Secondly: Communist self-assessments are still an important historical primary source, very much unlike your "Dude Trust Me Bro." This remains the case even if - and sometimes especially if - they were false or can't be corroborated with other lines of evidence (for instance, Ho and co drinking their own hype about how the South Vietnamese populace was ready to rise up in the mid 1950s when they very much weren't, leading to the Viet Cong overreaching and getting beaten down by Diem). But in this case we very much can, especially when we compare things like the Times, Le Monde, and Cronkite echoing similar lines that ultimately trace back to the likes of Hanoi or kindred spirits like Sartre, or simply pacifists.
Of course acknowledging that means you also don't get to completely ignore a line of evidence that guts your claims that the likes of SDS had "zero" impact on the war. But that's a you problem.
"Self-assessment is irrelevant"
.... said absolutely nobody fucking sane or self-aware, ever.
"Americans were not affected by North Vietnamese propaganda."
Pretending the likes of 'Prairie Fire' does not exist and did not lead to people getting killed and hurt does not make it so.
"Did Jane Fonda and the Students for a Democratic Society (I'll toss in the Weathermen, too) parrot their spiel? Sure."
Contradiction. Much as I am loathe to say it, Fonda, SDS, the Weathermen, and a host of other malcontents like the Black Panther Party were "Americans", in as much as they almost universally held American passports and lived and operated in America. And their actions and claims were broadcast heavily in America.
And now we know Hanoi's spiel was involved in it.
Now did most Americans believe everything they claimed? No, far from it.
But even those that believed none of it had to deal with radicalized political terrorists and protestors doing everything from anti-war sit ins to bombings.
And many were inclined to believe some of it. So you've just conceded my point while trying to deny it, obfuscating as if sophistry is a good substitute for the facts.
Be glad I'm not actually a bot, because that would mean you've gotten out-argued by a bot. But that wouldn't be too surprising since you just out-argued yourself.
"Did it have any affect on American society, or the debate we were having on the war? No."
Peter Paige, Officer Edward O'Grady, Officer Waverly Brown, and literally hundreds of others killed in domestic anti-American terrorism on US soil during the Vietnam War and its aftermath could not be reached for comment.
Your Logical Fallacy is the No True Scotsman. Or No True American, as the case may be.
"Westmoreland saying "gimme more" did."
It isn't an Either/Or, sophist liar. Both did.
But notably Westmoreland's increasing demands for troops were motivated not just by the heat of the war or his own incompetence, but also communist and defeatist media framing.
"Heck, OUR self-assessments showed that we had wiped out the North Vietnamese ten times over."
And guess what? The communist assessments actually agree to a large extent. The PAVN and its sister forces suffered something like 400% casualty rates over the duration of what they refer to as the "American War" and the Viet Cong got almost obliterated at least twice (the first time after Tet in 1968, and the second time in 1971).
It's just that they continued to regenerate rates faster than we could consistently kill, capture, or turncoat them due to heavy conscription. That coupled with hideous overclaiming from the likes of us or the ROK passing off either unarmed civilians or unrelated paramilitaries (like Buddhist anti-government rebels) as Communists gave the impression the communists had far more resources than they actually did.
This is also why self-assessments can't be entirely ignored, and need to be compared to other lines of data. And why Hanoi's analysis of its own war conduct is informative because they have decently accurate assessments of their own losses and the amount of recruiting necessary to continue fighting.
But you're going to ignore all this precisely because it not only indicates you don't know the subject, but it gores your claim.
"How did that assessment affect them? What?! You say "None.!" How can that be?"
Actually it affected them plenty, ESPECIALLY since they had better access to our own assessments than we did theirs, and they could shape it. Which is one reason they would often make a point of either lulling us into false senses of security before attacking ("what? I thought this sector was secure!" see: Hue on Tet) or carrying on the sight to give the impression they had far deeper reserves than they actually did in order to try and induce war weariness ("They just keep coming! It's another Dien Bien Phu!" ala Khe Sahn).
And why when they could confirm our assessments were for a change decently accurate and couldn't be influenced, they generally found things to be really really bad. Like after Linebacker.
Which is again why it is important to know their self-assessments and ours, and how those had effects on both.
But you're not equipped to do that and even less inclined to try, because the results would clown you even more than your two second reversal trying to pretend Fonda and the SDS were not Americans and had no impact on American culture would.
"A real human being would know those things:"
If you want to tell Lewis Sorley's publishers that he is an AI Bot and they are committing fraud claiming otherwise, go ahead.
I'll pop some popcorn and laugh at the defamation suit.
Otherwise?
You're an idiot who quite literally contradicted themselves inside of two sentences. You fucked up when USAF air operations in Vietnam began and how LeMay not only helped plan their early stages, but was partially canned as a result of them. Your credibility should be just about zero to anybody that bothers reading this through.
"Self-assessment is irrelevant to the other guy (might explain the enemy's actions and have some intel value, but that's it),"
'Self-assessment is irrelevant to the other guy (except it might not).'
Truly peak logic.
"and; Enemy propaganda did not affect how we felt about the war."
Except it very obviously did.
And to quote Tonto, "Who is we, Kemosabe?"
"A bot, however, especially a crude one with no perspective in the model and limited logical reasoning, would think that it did."
As would the defining historians of the period. But what do they know?
"So one can think that he's the handsomest, sauvist guy in the bar, but if the girls go home with someone else, his "self-assessment" is meaningless and irrelevant."
To quote the Spartans: If.
But if someone's self assessment includes lessons learned and ways to try and improve the ability to get girls to go home with him, then that self-assessment is not meaningless or irrelevant.
And that, JohnC, is how you get shown up by Henry Kissinger, He of the Troll Face, Strange Accent, and Moral Bankruptcy, at the local bar.
"Khe Sanh doesn't enter into it. Neither did the communist propaganda."
So one of the defining battles of the Vietnam War doesn't matter to the Vietnam War or how the American public perceived it.
Truly brilliant insights.
"So do yourself a favor, pretend you're a submariner, and rig for ultraquiet."
I don't do myself any favors by letting a sophist shitweasel insult me and lie about history without riposte.
And your conduct has given me absolutely no reason to want to do you any favors.
The fact that you're outright trivializing people who suffered, died, or were wounded as a result of this war and communist agitprop or unrelated urban legends is just the icing on the cake. Especially since not all those killed as a result of those things died in Indochina itself. Hence my name dropping of the Brinks Robbery victims.
Speaking of, care to guess where the next generation of Boudin is and what he's trying to do?
So don't tell me communist propaganda had no effect on the war or American society. We can quite literally see how it did and does today.
AI bot. Off the rails.
Fire for effect. I say again. Fire for effect.
I admit it'll be hard to have as great an effect on your credibility as you contradicting yourself in neighboring sentences (and sometimes in the same exact sentence) does while claiming the Communist Vietnamese archives and Lewis Sorley are all AI Bots, but I will make the effort.
Why you want to fantasize that you were out-debated by a bot rather than another human is beyond me, but it's the least of your problems JohnC.
Don't feed the trolls.
The mentally ill sometimes have what is called "pressured speech," where the words flow out like from a fire hose. I would figure we are looking at talk to text.
My apologies Nurse Jane, I did see your prior post and began writing a reply, but have been distracted. Including by JohnC and their particular flavor of dishonesty.
I am sorry that my AI ChatBot LLM processing was taken up by then, and I'll try and get back to you soon.
BeepBoop.