Yes, and by doing something like this, this administration is giving a tremendous amount of fuel to the people of Iran to become terrorists or generally anti-American people.
I can also see the people of North Korea hearing about this situation and how it will be feeding their anti-American government to become even more anti-American. They teach that we are colonialists and conquerors and things like this only feed it.
No, absolutely not. In fact, in my experience even something as minor as asking a non-Jew or less observant soldier to cover a shift on the Sabbath is frowned upon. Actually ordering someone to fight instead of you would be abhorrent.
And you don’t think a precision strike on military and political targets in support of millions of Iranians isn’t a plan?
Harry S Truman: “The buck stops here.”
Donald J. Trump: “The buck stops somewhere else, unless it’s actually a dollar bill, in which case it’s mine.”
Take it up with Lindsey Graham.
There’s nothing to take up. It’s clearly up to Iranians to fight their own battle. It’s not up to the US to conquer Iran any more than it is to conquer Russia in the conflict with Ukraine. We are supporting Iranians in their effort.
To prevent them from doing what they’ve been doing? No.
I mean, I guess technically blowing some shit up and getting different leadership with the same philosophy and actions is a plan, but not one that could remotely be expected to accomplish the sated goal.
There is no reason to think that whatever remote control destruction we cause will result in meaningful change in Iran. And I haven’t seen any serious claim that it will. Do you know of one?
From what I can research, the 1979 revolution was a lot more coordinated.
(My bold)
And the eventual toppling of the Shah’s government came from within
(My bold)
Can we expect an Iranian president to usher in a new leader? Are there factions within the military who will support this person?
I’m not sure it’s as simple as saying that they are both “revolutions” occurring in Iran.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-iranian-revolution-of-1979-195528#
I feel like you’re struggling to follow your own argument here. Lindsay Graham said Trump doesn’t have a plan. You think he does. Go argue with Lindsay.
That makes no sense at all. These people have died by the thousands and needed help. That help was applied by eliminating assets and leadership in a way they could not do. It was done without destroying the country or it’s civilian assets.
Fearless leader also mangles language:
Still, Trump warned more attacks were coming. “We are going after the rest — They will soon be floating at the bottom of the sea, also!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
My bolding.
From here:
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/01/nx-s1-5731365/us-israeli-strikes-region
Because civilians don’t count as civilian assets, apparently.
It wasn’t done to support the people of Iran; we’ve hated them for decades, and want to slaughter and torment them. Trump wanted to feel like a Big Man, and a lot of Americans are indulging their bloodlust. That’s what this is about. It is not in any way well-meaning.
First of all, we have an amazing track record of failing at regime change with much more involvement than just taking out a few leaders. Why some people never learn the lesson is beyond me.
Secondly, if Iran killed Trump and his entire cabinet, who would take over? (Hint: it wouldn’t be the No Kings protestors, or even Democrats.)
That’s a fine argument for why we should help them.
An argument that there is a plan, or a plan that makes sense, or that it’s not our responsibility (or Trump’s) to have a coherent plan before we start this? Not so much.
Lots and lots and lots of repressive governments have successfully put down uprisings over and over. The fact that the regime isn’t popular does not magically turn into meaningful action (or a plan) just because you killed the top of the government.
And what makes no sense? My argument that air strikes won’t necessarily lead to regime change? I think I have the preponderance of history on my side.
Bullshit.
Frankly the most well executed regime change done by the US was Mosaddegh in 1953 because we didn’t like the result of a completely legitimate election. We installed a dictator and we can directly follow the dots to this shit from there.
It occurs to me I have a better analogy (missed the edit window):
I have a plan to get my brother to finish college. FIRST, I get him fired from his job.
Then it’s his responsibility.
There you go, that’s already more of a plan than anyone in this administration had.
And now, their own battle is against us, instead of being against the regime. How does this help us?
Maybe “we” don’t want to slaughter the people of Iran, but Trump does. As evidenced by him actually, you know, slaughtering people of Iran.
I repeatedly hear Trump defenders refer to “precision” strikes, with the obvious inference that this is being done with care and attention to detail.
Was it a precision strike that killed the school kids, Trump?
If you wanted proof that trump has no plan for what he expects to happen to Iran, consider that he’s now saying he’s willing to negotiate with the regime.
Is this the end of the Islamic Republic or not?