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).

They should take a lesson from Iraq and Sodom Hussain, turn up at some random poor beggars house and simply move in, then keep swopping houses.

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.

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.

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.

Probably easier to get them into mar - a - lago over a weekend or two!

They did, apparently, have a small fleet of 5-7 freighter converted as UAV/missile Q ships. All still in either Iranian waters or the Red Sea/Indian Ocean when the campaign started and reportedly sunk.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...ips-destroyed/

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.

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:E

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.

Trump would disagree but so far Iran's response to unprovoked attack has been [my opinion] remarkably restrained. My thoughts are that attacks on mainland USA could cause Agent Orange to over-react ............. join the dots ..............
Thus tit-for-tat is the current rhythm.

I'm sure the IRGC would welcome any donations to the cause.

I saw a report a week or so ago that, after an air strike on a local IRGC station in Tehran, the locals quickly moved in a gathered large amounts of arms and ammunition.
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...

Bridge cut in half.
Updates: Iranian bridge cut in half by strike as Trump warns ‘more to follow’ - BBC News
Interdiction = Ground invasion.

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.

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

Just because you can dream it up doesn't mean it's operationally/logistically
feasible. Add to that, if that capability existed, over a month into the conflict one would think it would have been used.

So 47 years of aggression, bombings, missile attacks etc, by Iran don’t count?

But they knew the Iranians were close to a nuclear weapon. And where Khamenei was.

Please.

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! “

I love the Leroy Jenkins reference. :)