Iran
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 675
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Every situation involving a President's consideration and decision about the missions to be assigned to United States Armed Forces, during my lifetime and to the extent at least somewhat in public view, has involved fairly frequent reference to the notion that "presidents need to receive options".
(Caveats: though I recall the Soviet blockade of Berlin, that far back in kidhood I wasn't paying that much attention. But not long after LBJ took office, my parents - who both essentially preached a sort of "Rosie the Riveter", "Kilroy Was Here" and "Willie and Joe" constant history lesson, made it impossible for younger me not to pay attention to news (such as it was) about such decisions. These caveats are noted inasmuch as there are so many ex-military personages on this thread (and the forum, in general), so that it sometimes seems necessary to say what wild idea makes me think I may have something to add here. And yes, the Berlin blockade led to reading about the Berlin Airlift, and Rosie led to reading about the B-24 Liberator bomber plant at Willow Run.)
Was it noticed that the White House Press Secretary, the indefatigable Karoline Leavitt, used the word "optionality"?
This matters because the President needs to be presented with specific and detailed plans in order to then decide that the risks and difficulties are too heavy to enable an operation or mission to proceed. The elements of the plan described in the article in just strictly aviation terms (including aviation assets and logistics) are, well, overwhelming.
There are voices or interests who appear to be pressing the President to approve a uranium retrieval and extraction mission. By receiving a detailed plan, and seeing what risks and difficulties are presented according to the military officers whose career paths have given them the responsibility to define and assess these factors, the C-I-C then is able to state, with veracity, that the option was considered, and it was decided against. Maybe not publicly stated, but stated as a matter of presidential decision-making process.
I'll go back now to trying to get more pages read in Presidents of War (Michael Beschloss 2019).
(Caveats: though I recall the Soviet blockade of Berlin, that far back in kidhood I wasn't paying that much attention. But not long after LBJ took office, my parents - who both essentially preached a sort of "Rosie the Riveter", "Kilroy Was Here" and "Willie and Joe" constant history lesson, made it impossible for younger me not to pay attention to news (such as it was) about such decisions. These caveats are noted inasmuch as there are so many ex-military personages on this thread (and the forum, in general), so that it sometimes seems necessary to say what wild idea makes me think I may have something to add here. And yes, the Berlin blockade led to reading about the Berlin Airlift, and Rosie led to reading about the B-24 Liberator bomber plant at Willow Run.)
Was it noticed that the White House Press Secretary, the indefatigable Karoline Leavitt, used the word "optionality"?
This matters because the President needs to be presented with specific and detailed plans in order to then decide that the risks and difficulties are too heavy to enable an operation or mission to proceed. The elements of the plan described in the article in just strictly aviation terms (including aviation assets and logistics) are, well, overwhelming.
There are voices or interests who appear to be pressing the President to approve a uranium retrieval and extraction mission. By receiving a detailed plan, and seeing what risks and difficulties are presented according to the military officers whose career paths have given them the responsibility to define and assess these factors, the C-I-C then is able to state, with veracity, that the option was considered, and it was decided against. Maybe not publicly stated, but stated as a matter of presidential decision-making process.
I'll go back now to trying to get more pages read in Presidents of War (Michael Beschloss 2019).
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 2nd April 2026 at 20:30.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,137
Likes: 5,738
From: Falling off the end of the thread
I see the US has asked Poland for their bought and paid for Patriot batteries and they pointed out they are to protect their country and NATO's Eastern flanks, so you can politely F off.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,137
Likes: 5,738
From: Falling off the end of the thread
I am surprised Iran hasn't loaded a bunch of missiles / drones on a freighter, sailed up to the US coast and lobbed them into the Whitehouse etc, after all, he has already removed the wing that was over the top of his not so top secret old bunker.
Joined: Dec 2012
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 820
From: Co. Down
Way this demented vanity box is behaving it wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a kill switch (or data equivalent) on the Patriots until he got his own way. I think we must expect this to apply to any US-sourced equipment in future, which makes Korean stuff all the more attractive. Fair point on your missile freighter warning, it may well happen yet.
Joined: Mar 2018
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 840
Likes: 123
From: Bournemouth
Probably easier to get them into mar - a - lago over a weekend or two!
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,509
Likes: 7,252
From: Peripatetic
I am surprised Iran hasn't loaded a bunch of missiles / drones on a freighter, sailed up to the US coast and lobbed them into the Whitehouse etc, after all, he has already removed the wing that was over the top of his not so top secret old bunker.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...ips-destroyed/
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Seems the Pentagon has already addressed your dastardly plot. Sharks with frickin laser beams are next up on the list of Iran’s secret squirrel weapons.
Joined: Sep 2001
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 203
From: Toronto
There's all sorts of cabin cruisers in the Caribbean and Bahamas that could be loaded up with drones to target Mar a Lago or attempt to cause indigestion to AF-1's engines - maybe camouflaged as Canada geese
Ukrainian expertise would be useful, but they have a few Shahed bones to pick with Iran.
Israel is doing very well at plinking Iranian hierarchy, but the local opposition can't regime change without sufficient small arms to stand up to the IRGC. Maybe instead of paratroops and SF, Trump would do better to paradrop guns and ammo.
Ukrainian expertise would be useful, but they have a few Shahed bones to pick with Iran.
Israel is doing very well at plinking Iranian hierarchy, but the local opposition can't regime change without sufficient small arms to stand up to the IRGC. Maybe instead of paratroops and SF, Trump would do better to paradrop guns and ammo.
Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 2nd April 2026 at 19:33.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,787
Likes: 1,205
From: Baston
Thus tit-for-tat is the current rhythm.
Joined: Mar 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 214
From: London
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,672
Likes: 3,314
From: Everett, WA
No idea of that was a one-off or if it's widespread. If it's widespread, the IRGC could quickly find itself in an untenable situation. People tend to remember when you murder tens of thousands of protesters...
Joined: Dec 2020
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,567
Likes: 1,379
From: Over the rainbow
Bridge cut in half.
Updates: Iranian bridge cut in half by strike as Trump warns ‘more to follow’ - BBC News
Interdiction = Ground invasion.
Updates: Iranian bridge cut in half by strike as Trump warns ‘more to follow’ - BBC News
Interdiction = Ground invasion.
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 229
From: UK
Pete Hegseth fires highest-ranking US Army officer in the middle of Iran war
Hmm
Possibly, if one was to consider using armed intervention to establish a coherent outcome, one would start with an objective, a plan, assets in place and trusted subordinates. Changing any of these, after the start of hostilities, would look confusing to troops, allies and opponents.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,765
Likes: 345
From: UK
perhaps not …
"When US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started this war a month ago, they didn’t have a clear understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime and its defensive capability.
They didn’t expect Tehran to counter their offensives with an unprecedented level of preparedness, striking US bases across the Persian Gulf and hitting Israel hard.
Nor did they anticipate Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz, partially or fully, to cause a shortage of oil and gas with severe consequences for the global economy."
"What is increasingly clear is the war is unlikely to end by military means. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement. The onus will therefore fall on Trump to pull Netanyahu into line and take the lead on trying to strike a deal."
https://theconversation.com/trump-un...campaign=World Affairs Briefing from the UK - 3726538115&utm_content=World Affairs Briefing from the UK - 3726538115+CID_1ebaa8ee6118657cc1a4effb7f2308ab&utm_source=c ampaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Trump underestimated Irans resilience Now there is only one way out of the war
"When US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started this war a month ago, they didn’t have a clear understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime and its defensive capability.
They didn’t expect Tehran to counter their offensives with an unprecedented level of preparedness, striking US bases across the Persian Gulf and hitting Israel hard.
Nor did they anticipate Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz, partially or fully, to cause a shortage of oil and gas with severe consequences for the global economy."
"What is increasingly clear is the war is unlikely to end by military means. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement. The onus will therefore fall on Trump to pull Netanyahu into line and take the lead on trying to strike a deal."
https://theconversation.com/trump-un...campaign=World Affairs Briefing from the UK - 3726538115&utm_content=World Affairs Briefing from the UK - 3726538115+CID_1ebaa8ee6118657cc1a4effb7f2308ab&utm_source=c ampaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Trump underestimated Irans resilience Now there is only one way out of the war
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
There's all sorts of cabin cruisers in the Caribbean and Bahamas that could be loaded up with drones to target Mar a Lago or attempt to cause indigestion to AF-1's engines - maybe camouflaged as Canada geese
Ukrainian expertise would be useful, but they have a few Shahed bones to pick with Iran.
Israel is doing very well at plinking Iranian hierarchy, but the local opposition can't regime change without sufficient small arms to stand up to the IRGC. Maybe instead of paratroops and SF, Trump would do better to paradrop guns and ammo.
Ukrainian expertise would be useful, but they have a few Shahed bones to pick with Iran.
Israel is doing very well at plinking Iranian hierarchy, but the local opposition can't regime change without sufficient small arms to stand up to the IRGC. Maybe instead of paratroops and SF, Trump would do better to paradrop guns and ammo.
feasible. Add to that, if that capability existed, over a month into the conflict one would think it would have been used.
Joined: Mar 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 152
From: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Joined: Oct 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,551
Likes: 774
From: The Coal Face
"When US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started this war a month ago, they didn’t have a clear understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime and its defensive capability. They didn’t expect Tehran to counter their offensives with an unprecedented level of preparedness, striking US bases across the Persian Gulf and hitting Israel hard. Nor did they anticipate Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz, partially or fully, to cause a shortage of oil and gas with severe consequences for the global economy."
https://theconversation.com/trump-un...campaign=World
https://theconversation.com/trump-un...campaign=World
Please.
Joined: Sep 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 2,371
Likes: 877
From: Canada
The latest What is going on with Shipping
Re The Strait of Hormuz
There is an Iranian saying
"Shotor didi, nadidi" (شتر دیدی؟ ندیدی)
You saw a camel, you didn’t see a camel
now how would one say “ Tanker? What Tanker? I don’t see a tanker! “
Re The Strait of Hormuz
There is an Iranian saying
"Shotor didi, nadidi" (شتر دیدی؟ ندیدی)
You saw a camel, you didn’t see a camel
now how would one say “ Tanker? What Tanker? I don’t see a tanker! “
Joined: Oct 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 793
Likes: 168
From: Land of Oz
Australia has reportedly deployed SAS troops to the Middle East. According to the Daily Telegraph, 90 Special Air Service personnel will be based at the Al Minhad Air Base near Dubai in the event of war in the region escalating further. It is understood that the troops will not be involved in any US attacks but will instead focus on emergency rescues of diplomats in the region. Defence Minister Richard Marles was asked on Sky News yesterday if Australia was sending any more military assets to the region. Anthony Albanese is maintaining his stance that Australia will not aid in offensive combat in the conflict.
