CallMeBigErn
Active poster
So you'll be going after the Saudis next, yes?
Official Iran conflict game thread.
- Thread starter PurpleThrobber
- Start date
Why? Are you retarded?
The Saudis are less radical and more reliable than England at this point
And we? bought the Saudis after WW2 and they stayed bought
And we? bought the Saudis after WW2 and they stayed bought
Its not even close. The UK leaders hate the US. This whole thing seems like a re-shuffling of key allies.
People forget the British were enemies of the US in the War for Independence, the War of 1812 and they supplied the Confederates in the Civil War. Monty undermined Ike constantly in WWII.
I ain't got no quarrel with the Viet Saudis.
CallMeBigErn
Active poster
Sure.
New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity
Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day.
The Atlantic.Sure.
New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity
Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day.www.theatlantic.com
We know what happened. The Saudis also knew that Bush wouldn't always be President and this was there one time get out of jail free card. It's not 2001 anymore. You need to get out more.
This is pretty much where I think Trump is - He would like a constitutional republic but will settle with regime compliance. Trump is not a neocon.
pjmedia.com
What is the point of Operation Epic Fury? What's the endgame? Great name aside, President Donald Trump's statements don't exactly offer perfect clarity — and there are perhaps solid reasons to maintain strategic ambiguity.
But that also means that conservative milbloggers like CDR Salamander have every right to say, as Sal did on Saturday, "I hope this ends sooner more than later. We’ve made our point, whatever that is."
Here are the justifications Trump has given in the 72 hours or so since ordering GO! on Epic Fury :
That is exactly as it should be. "We’ve done plenty of punitive expeditions in our nation’s history, CDR Sal noted on Monday, "but in the last few decades, as a certain pedigree of policy maker held sway over our national security doctrine, it fell out of favor."
Trump brought it back, bigly.
Epic Fury is not a "forever war," much as I despise that lazy phrase, and the U.S. will not put boots on the ground (aside, I presume, from some very sneaky special operators and intelligence spooks), and we will not indulge in another endless round of impossible nation-building. Besides, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, Iran already is a nation with a strong national identity and a history stretching back millennia.
If there's to be a better Iran, that's up to them. We can create the conditions, we can (again) set back the Mullahs' nuclear ambitions, but we cannot and should not attempt to do more than that.
We still have the question, though, of what Trump's actual endgame is.
And Another Thing: Note that I did not say "exit strategy." That's code for bugging out — see Afghanistan, 2021 — and is typically thrown around by Democrats uninterested in winning. But when we don't have an achievable endgame in mind, we shouldn't bother.
If I had to guess — and for now, at least, I do — here's what I think he might be up to.
Based on Trump's stated goals, his longstanding convictions against hubris and overreach, and his recent history, maybe Operation Epic Fury is more like Operation Absolute Resolve Writ Large.
Two months ago, U.S. forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to face American justice. We did not, however, topple the regime. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez stepped up, read the altered global situation, and has proven mostly compliant with American interests. And that, frankly, is as much as we require.
If the people of Iran take their government and create a decently run constitutional republic — or perhaps even a constitutional monarchy — that's friendly to the West as it was under the Shah... well, that'd be nifty. Unlikely, perhaps, but nifty indeed.
Thankfully, Trump doesn't seem to count on the unlikely.
If some general were to step up to run things — or perhaps a colonel, as quickly as Tehran is running through flag officers — and promise good behavior under American auspices, that might be as nifty a result as we require. We might prefer free elections or the restoration of the monarchy under Reza Pahlavi, but I imagine Trump would happily settle for a local Rodríguez.
It's the difference between regime change and regime compliance. Or as Sal put it, "Nation building OPLANS again? No. Not any more. Breaking their things and killing their worst leadership that endangered the USA and her allies? I’m in."
"Regime compliance" might just be the ultimate expression of the Trump Doctrine, but for now, we'll have to wait and see.
Regime Change or Regime Compliance?
Analysis of Operation Epic Fury and Trump's strategy on Iran: regime change vs regime compliance.
pjmedia.com
Regime Change or Regime Compliance?
Stephen Green | 12:58 PM on March 02, 2026What is the point of Operation Epic Fury? What's the endgame? Great name aside, President Donald Trump's statements don't exactly offer perfect clarity — and there are perhaps solid reasons to maintain strategic ambiguity.
But that also means that conservative milbloggers like CDR Salamander have every right to say, as Sal did on Saturday, "I hope this ends sooner more than later. We’ve made our point, whatever that is."
Here are the justifications Trump has given in the 72 hours or so since ordering GO! on Epic Fury :
- "Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime."
- "They can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon."
- "All I want is freedom for the people. I want a safe nation, and that's what we're going to have."
- "When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take."
That is exactly as it should be. "We’ve done plenty of punitive expeditions in our nation’s history, CDR Sal noted on Monday, "but in the last few decades, as a certain pedigree of policy maker held sway over our national security doctrine, it fell out of favor."
Trump brought it back, bigly.
Epic Fury is not a "forever war," much as I despise that lazy phrase, and the U.S. will not put boots on the ground (aside, I presume, from some very sneaky special operators and intelligence spooks), and we will not indulge in another endless round of impossible nation-building. Besides, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, Iran already is a nation with a strong national identity and a history stretching back millennia.
If there's to be a better Iran, that's up to them. We can create the conditions, we can (again) set back the Mullahs' nuclear ambitions, but we cannot and should not attempt to do more than that.
We still have the question, though, of what Trump's actual endgame is.
And Another Thing: Note that I did not say "exit strategy." That's code for bugging out — see Afghanistan, 2021 — and is typically thrown around by Democrats uninterested in winning. But when we don't have an achievable endgame in mind, we shouldn't bother.
If I had to guess — and for now, at least, I do — here's what I think he might be up to.
Based on Trump's stated goals, his longstanding convictions against hubris and overreach, and his recent history, maybe Operation Epic Fury is more like Operation Absolute Resolve Writ Large.
Two months ago, U.S. forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to face American justice. We did not, however, topple the regime. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez stepped up, read the altered global situation, and has proven mostly compliant with American interests. And that, frankly, is as much as we require.
If the people of Iran take their government and create a decently run constitutional republic — or perhaps even a constitutional monarchy — that's friendly to the West as it was under the Shah... well, that'd be nifty. Unlikely, perhaps, but nifty indeed.
Thankfully, Trump doesn't seem to count on the unlikely.
If some general were to step up to run things — or perhaps a colonel, as quickly as Tehran is running through flag officers — and promise good behavior under American auspices, that might be as nifty a result as we require. We might prefer free elections or the restoration of the monarchy under Reza Pahlavi, but I imagine Trump would happily settle for a local Rodríguez.
It's the difference between regime change and regime compliance. Or as Sal put it, "Nation building OPLANS again? No. Not any more. Breaking their things and killing their worst leadership that endangered the USA and her allies? I’m in."
"Regime compliance" might just be the ultimate expression of the Trump Doctrine, but for now, we'll have to wait and see.
CallMeBigErn
Active poster
Laser focused on the task at hand
Ernie itching to fight a US ally
Same as ever
So did the jews do 9-11 or the Saudis or Bush?
Pick a lane
Same as ever
So did the jews do 9-11 or the Saudis or Bush?
Pick a lane
Sure.
Crown prince has been organizing a government transition for months but a planned strike killed all the candidates for that.
We? Already won in both Venezuela and Iran at this point.
Actually having functional governments in those countries would just be gravy.
Ern gonna lose his mind when Cuba surrenders in the last 30 days.
One can never go wrong by picking the CIA in any sort of skullduggery.
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I don't hate Jews. I hate forever wars when some country 6,000 miles away is not a direct threat. I'm consistent and don't fall for all the propaganda or smearing. If it's just strategic bombing I'm fine with it. If it's Afghanistan, that's ridiculous.
Then King Charles.
He's scheduled to die on/about March 26, I believe, it @pawz conspiracy thread reported properly.
Edit: March 28 is when Charles is set to expire.