I am doing no such thing. Suggest you change the lens in your specs.

I personally disagree with this latest attack on Iran, because it is my sense that it has been a matter of prioritizing Israeli security over critical US national interests.

If, as noted by someone a few posts back, the "regime change" theme is the plan (of that I am unsure) then the problem of timing and geography made that a non-starter before the first bomb dropped. The thousands and thousands who would and could stand up have been killed or jailed. (And the previous Grand Ayatollah was already getting close to the end of his run, as noted by Mid East experts for the last two years).

If the aim was to further reduce Iran's armaments - which is what was being discussed (as hosted by the Omanis) right up to the point of the bombs beginning to fall - I suppose that one way to reduce their armament stores is to get them to fire a bunch of them. :confused:

There were some pics on CNN the other day that showed footage of various Iranian work parties trying to dig missiles and missile launchers out of the rubbled/blocked locations that had been hit...at some point, those caves will be dug out and some of the "lost" armaments will be recovered and able to be deployed again.

The only consistent theme that has come out of DJT on Iran since his first term is that the nuclear deal before his term was rubbish (and the 60% enrichment evidence did show that they were indeed cheating) and that a new deal (that he can take credit for) must be put into place before normal relations are restored.

Iran, for their part, has of course pushed back on this...the regime has been consistent in its pursuit of a nuke program regardless of which agreements are, or are not, active. The Iranian regime has the advantage of not changing its leadership very often...they have had one change with the first Ayatollah died, and they had a recent change when the longer serving second Ayatollah died. He was in power for about 37 years. The US changed administrations six times over that period, and needless to say changed directions on Mid East policy a few times during that period.

So what is the aim?
(Note: I am deliberately not adding into this the security of Arab PG allies with whom the US has various deals and relationships, since their positions are subject to change regardless of what a given US administration does...recall Biden's efforts to treat KSA reigning monarch as a pariah?)
Beyond some general "security in the Persian gulf" sound byte that's muddy.
Note also that security on the Arabian peninsula has a direct impact on security in East Africa/Horn of Africa...and Sudan has been in a civil war for about 4 years...various players among the Gulf States are involved.

As far as I can parse the aim...the aim is something vaguely related to Iran's nuclear posture, and their collection of long range missiles that can reach outside of the Persian Gulf - since that is what was under discussion in February before the bombs began to fall and the missiles began to fly. (Which is similar to what was under discussion in June of last year before the bombs began to fall for 12 days).

"Bomb them back to the negotiating table" has been an effective move before, in certain circumstances. (The "Christmas Bombing" of North Viet Nam being one, the NATO 70+day bombing of Serbia are the only two that come to mind).

Is this the best way to go about it?
I don't think so, but as I've mentioned before, nobody in DC is answering my calls.

"If you won't make a deal I'll bomb you" is as close to a coherent message as I can dig out of the noise.

I sometimes feel that the inconsistency of messaging is deliberate, and other times I think it is based on chaos mongering as a habit.

Filtering signal out of the noise is quite frankly harder with this group than with any previous administration - including his first one - since there is so much noise. And as I noted in a different thread, there are a variety of people whose names you don't know who have the President's ear. Who gets to talk to him last has an impact on what utterances are made. (Per people who worked for him in the first administration).

On an operational note: from the WSJ...

Really all that’s in the public realm since this go around is Iran’s bombastic statements of continued efforts towards getting the bomb for Allah. What they are actually doing on a daily basis towards that goal is unknown. As far as the getting knocked down/getting up cycle, certainly not optimal but absent an enormous commitment of blood and treasure to physically purloin the HEU from its underground lair, there isn’t much to stop the Iranians from initiating the next cycle of whack a mole. The UN as a whole and many member states individually have committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, at this point talk nor strongly worded UNSC resolutions will achieve the goal. Either we accept Iran as a nuclear armed state or we don’t and match our collective efforts towards that outcome.

Salute!
Thanks, Westy. You have the simplified the required international policy, Westy, except defining one important aspect.

" The UN as a whole and many member states individually have committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, at this point talk nor strongly worded UNSC resolutions will achieve the goal. Either we accept Iran as a nuclear armed state or we don’t and match our collective efforts towards that outcome."

What is missing?
ENFORCEMENT.
Gums sends...

Wait what?? Suddenly its the UN's collective problem to sort out??! After all the likes of Trump and his supporters have said about this institution?

Given the way the UNSC vote on the Straits of Hormuz went the week before last, I think we can safely file this under "Extreme Wishful Thinking"

The UN laid down a marker against Iran acquiring a nuke. Doing so was either a feel good moment which lacked the resolve and capabilities to ensure it or they mean business and will stop Iran from building one. Clearly it’s the former and not the later, leaving the mandate to the US to do so. So yes, this is a UN problem as much as anyone else’s.

Hmmm. Dunno.
a) I don't see the slightest proof that Iran was now only weeks away from having a working nuclear bomb and
b) If they really were, they still are. The massive bombardment of the last 6 weeks hasn't been able to flatten a lot of the much less protected conventional weapon systems- I wouldn't expect that they did any damage to the well protected Nuclear stuff. The only difference being that Iran is now massively more motivated to finally and urgently get 'the Bomb'.

You have access to bomb damage assessments or are you relying on media reports to arrive at that conclusion?

Cheers, Lonewolf_50, that all makes a lot of sense to me too! :ok:

And how do you achieve enforcement? Well, by verification of Iran's current weapon development status would be a good starting point. That can only be done by inspections and I think an Iranian invite to the IAEA of unrestricted access to all of its sites has also been kicked down the road a good few years. Despite all the bombs and bullets and rhetoric from both sides, who can honestly say what the state of Iran's progress towards getting a nuclear weapon is today? At best, this latest show of US force has only kicked the can down the road a few years, hardened Iranian resolve to obtain nuclear weapons and further hardened Islamic views towards USA.

...........
ISW:

Remembering of course that after June the BDA said the nuclear programme had been "obliterated".

People believe what they want to.

This seems to be one of the 'collateral damages' of this adventure. Power in Iran as now apparently completely and openly shifted over to IRGC. Peseshkian had been sidelined already quite early, now also the offical negotiators as well. Not good.

How can the IRGC Navy attack ships in the Strait - I thought their Navy had been sunk and was at the bottom of the sea??

Israeli military officials are preparing for the ceasefire to potentially collapse, and have updated target sets in Iran, this time including the Iranian power grid - Maariv News

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cf80cf0646.png

Sky News reports a large Iranian-flagged vessel (cargo ship) tried to run the US blockade by refusing to stop, and was fired upon by USS Spruance, which holed the engine room. US Marines have boarded.

Iranian media is reporting that Tehran has rejected taking part in a new round of talks with the US in Pakistan.

The statement, published by Iran's IRNA news agency, comes just hours after US President Trump announced he would send a delegation to Islamabad to resume talks on Monday evening, local time.

Reference the seizure of the Iranian ship…..

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ddee331cc.jpeg

Did they bring along tugboats, or is the ship left to drift in the strait?

Video of the USN action.

Considering the source is the Trump administration, it’s highly likely this is a fabricated lie.