sherpa

I'm not interested in pretending anything. Least of all your fantasies or judgements on this stuff. Believe what you want. Not my concern.

There are a few things I care absolutely nothing about regarding this. First, Dems complaining about consultation and approval. All Presidents have done the same thing, and the efficacy of the operation would have been in great jeopardy. Second, anything from the useless UN. Just give up. Nobody pays attention. Third, anything from John Bolton who I think has lost his mind and probably calls news outlets begging to get his comments paid any attention to.

Ya. I'm completely confident that my view on redeploying Nimitz is correct. Been there, done that. Same waters. South China Sea through Straits of Malacca, then same airspace, same enemy.

If you are an Iranian mine layer, you have the life expectancy of a lab rat. If they bag a tanker using a mussel, we have an entirely new seafood industry to deal with. But that's another subject. 'Houston....We've got a bivalve mullusc problem."

Are you capable of basic understanding? Vance correctly noted that the US is not actively engaged in regime change. Trump is opining why such a thing wouldn't occur if the gov is no longer serving its people. Not externally forced, but a natural consequence like 1776.

No surprise here. You post a theory and then claim "foul" based on the denied theory being true. All evidence points otherwise. Nimitz would not have suddenly been redeployed to the IO resulting in a five day delay, if the US would have "known." They would have been there. Believe whatever you want, just don't state the belief as fact.

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one. The US did not know, thank God, of Israeli strike plans that were so incredibly successful. To design a strike as complicated as what we just pulled off takes an immense amount of planning and coordination. That takes time, and that detailed planning is what allowed the execution to be so successful. I fully doubt the Russia/Tehran (IRGC), suggestion re the Strait of Hormuz in your post. I don't think it's at all likely. The IRGC has been decapitated.

Simply a brilliantly executed strike. Immensely difficult to coordinate all of these players, and there were so many. Exposes the comment made here last week that there was no interaction between the Pentagon and the WH. I remember reading that and shaking my head at the gross ignorance that claim. Just the tanking plan alone must have been incredible complicated as well as the timing of the "sweep" packages to clear the way and ensure the weapon deliverers were not engaged. Deconflicting many strike axis and precise timing of so many separate packages. I am looking forward to a detailed explanation of the scope. In the meantime, I sure hope the B2's get back to Knob Noster MO. safely. Well done.

When you say "strike," I assume you mean missile launches, unless they still have some cells inside Iraq that could somehow penetrate US defenses. I honestly believe one of the reasons for the dramatic decrease in Iranian ballistic missile launches against Israel is because they are keeping a number in reserve for potential use against US forces in the region. If they do that, we will have two carriers in place by Sunday, and a host of incredibly capable Air Force assets, and I would unleash that capability within an hour, and completely eliminate whatever military they have left, along with the nuc facilities. No talk.

Agree. Convene the House and Senate Intel Committees and lay it out. But......The US Congress has a horrible reputation for leaking to generate political gain. I still wish he took more of a stateman's approach than this silly "I'll decide" solo nonsense. He is what he is, and that's why I've never really liked him as a leader. I do think he is very reluctant to commit US assets to the fray, but it may be the best way. And less someone get some crazy notion, that has nothing to do with US ground forces.

Normally, I would agree with backtracking to more shared power, certainly in matters of the economy and spending. But, regarding war powers, I expect and Congressional hearings would devolve into political grandstanding and sound bite seeking, and in no way have our nation's best interests as a goal. Sound bite season contributing nothing.

Kind of nominating Josh for MVP with 13 secs left against KC. Lots of stuff to be determined.

I get what you're saying, but the point is that right or wrong, Presidents have enjoyed very liberal interpretations of what constitutes use of military action. Both sides. Very disappointed that Tim Kaine went on this vector and I don't think his logic is close to what is being considered or likely. I used to kind of like the guy, but he has become a speed bump.

This comes up every time military action is considered, always by the opposition. See Obama and Libya/Syria. See Clinton Bosnia.

Not my business to tell people what to think, but with the Israeli action and how this is playing out, we are WAY better off than we were a few weeks ago. Cheer up. Imagine no sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Imagine Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia able to coexist peacefully with Iran and Israel. It is all possible. Best two weeks in a very long time.

I don't see it that way at all. Israel was completely aware of the Natanz and Fordow facilities prior to their action. I read a detailed report of what it would take and the suggested efficacy of the US' Massive Ordnance Penetrator months ago, which isn't a guarantee. Either way, the Israelis have prosecuted this action with incredible skill and I doubt there have been any surprises other than Iranian incompetence since it began.

Back to the thread subject. The "two weeks" thing from Trump is getting a lot of attention by a poster in this thread. I won't comment in those threads, but...... I heard a couple days ago from an Israeli military expert who claimed that Israel could probable keep up its Air Force strikes for about :two weeks more." The next day Trump throws out the same number.

The best way is to eliminate the regime that has insisted on completing the project and annihilating Israel and the US. A new regime determined to get along with the rest of the world probably wouldn't object to eliminating the program. Note the pivot that Israeli offensive strikes have taken over the past 48 hours. They are no longer focused on missile launchers or the Iranian nuc program, but have gone after the regime's internal police. In my view that is a sign that while they are not going to overthrow the Islamic regime, they are making it easier for the Iranians to do it themselves. If there is no regime change, as BillsFanNC pointed out, assured compliance would be part of a settlement agreement.

Nobody has claimed they have such a weapon "at the ready."

That is a valid concern. The fact is that everyone knew the Iranians were violating the JCPOA. Even the Obama Administration claimed evidence of it. Never mentioned in this thread, (of course), by those who thought the John Kerry negotiated agreement was of any real value, was the reported event where the Israelis discovered detailed historical records of the program in an Iranian warehouse. 55,000 pages of documents indicating clear existing violations and intent to continue. The Israelis smuggled it out, translated it, and presented it to Trump in his first term. Anyway, there has been a constant drumbeat from intl sources about the violations up till May 31 of this year. They have never been in compliance and never intended to, JCPOA Violations Iran Docs re Nuc Program

The less the US is involved in actual "kinetics," the easier and less problematic the transition to a new Iran becomes. No need for us now. I would expect that somewhere what's left of Iran's proxies are going to do something to try to drag the US in. Last gasp, and I hope unsuccessful.

I think the use of our 30,000 lb bomb is being overplayed by the press as some magic bullet solution to this. I read a detailed report that went into great detail on the Iranian nuc program and how difficult it would be to eliminate with the underground sites and nation wide dispersal, using standard military strikes. That was written before it became obvious that Iran's air defense is gone, wo we now would have freedom to operate with some exceptions. Once the IAEA exposed the non compliance of Iran in their May 31 report, the starting piston was fired. The Israelis have been masterful in not only eliminating a good deal of the infrastructure, but in terminating a great deal of IRGC and other leadership. I don't know how it ends, but I would assert that if any hostile actions are taken against US forces or international shipping in the Gulf or Strait, it's going to be game on for the US and catastrophic for the Iranian regime.

I simply commented on a theory that US airplanes were in Iranian airspace and someone wondering if they were AWACS. Frankly, I have strong doubts that any US airplanes were in Iranian airspace, but they certainly would not be AWACS. Your post has nothing to do with mine.

Just a small point for general information. Our AWACS capability would not require anything to be in Iranian airspace. That includes Air Force and Navy. Both services have AWACS that would be well away from that airspace and be fully capable of doing their thing.

One of the peripheral issues in this involves the potential for unintended consequences. Iran has undoubtedly enriched nuclear material to near weapon's grade. I have no background on this, but it would be entirely undesirable to have any radiation escape.