(01-25-2026, 07:40 AM)727Sky Wrote:
I couldn't help but notice the similarity between that AI avatar's voice and the voice of the "WOPR" computer in the old "War Games" movie.
I personally think his assessment was faulty - he seems to be presuming that any action against Iran would necessarily be predicated on an extended, protracted and drawn out war scenario. I don't think that's the case. I think that a series of surgical strikes would be far more productive, and of a far shorter duration to accomplish the mission.
Trump has demonstrated a preference for quick hit-n-git victories over protracted war.
The military is repositioning about 25,000 troops into a threatening posture. I think - or at least hope - that is just a "feint"... an intentional ruse to distract attention away from the main assault without intent to carry that particular threat to completion. This is not a case where we need "boots on the ground" - we already have them in place in the form of the Iranian civilians protesting and rioting. All they need is weapons to counter the regime's weapons. they don't need any extra bodies there to get in their way.
We don't need any more "boots on the ground" there, but making the regime THINK that such an invasion action is imminent would cause them to prepare more for an attack that never comes, shifting preparation away from an attack that DOES come.
About a week and a half ago or so, a KC-135 flying gas station was, briefly, actually IN the airspace of Iran. No idea what that was about.
A few days after that, drones were flying patrols all up and down the Iranian coast along the axis of the Persian Gulf. If I had to guess, I'd say they were mapping out coastal anti-air sites, marking them for future destruction. The intent of that would be to give our air power a freer hand in executing surgical strikes rather than protracted war.
While those strikes were going on, it would be prudent to air-drop weapons for the protesters to put to use against the regime.
And, all of that could be accomplished without a single boot on the ground that isn't already there now, other than the possibility of a snatch operation to capture and secure the ayatollah and perhaps a few more ranking honchos in the regime. The Iranian people themselves could mop up the rest and topple the regime on their own, assuming the possession of airdropped weaponry in the form of small arms and perhaps mortars, with perhaps a few strafing runs from western sources as air support.
We don't need extra troops there - we're not trying to gain and hold ground, we're trying to help the Iranians to regain and hold ground that is already theirs, not ours. All they want is help, and that doesn't mean they want US troopers on the ground there. It means there is infrastructure they need us to disassemble from the air to make their own victory easier.
.
“Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake