Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The US/Israel's June 2025 bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities supposedly destroyed Iran's nuclear program and killed its scientists. The economic sanctions that have been in place for years have supposedly destroyed Iran's economy. And yet, nine months later, the US/Israel launched Epic Fury because Iran was supposedly close to getting a nuclear weapon and planning major attacks.
So far, Epic Fury has replaced one Khamenei with another Khamenei. Iran continues to fire missiles, drones and cluster bombs at its neighbors. There is no resistance inside Iran aiming to overthrow the regime—no coups, no protests, etc. Without regime change, does anything suggest that the bombing of Iran is not going to become an annual event, costing American lives and treasure, without end? And if that is the case, what is the point?
I don't claim to have any answers. Just a lot of skepticism about the military industrial complex and the Gordian Knot of foreign entanglements. And it feels like the Administration's shifting narratives and bluster mask the fact that it didn't have a defined objective going into the mission, or a defined endgame—and that it is simply making it up as it goes along. That's not what Trump ran on.
Just my two cents.
Discussion (95)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We could end up with Iran that is freer, yet America is much less free than a generation ago. I don't see that as a win.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The mission was clear to me: to help the Iranian protesters seeking a regime change. When the ayatollahs threatened to kill the protesters, Trump said to them, "Don't do it." Trump told the protesters, "We will help you." The ayatollahs then killed 36,000 people. We killed the ayatollahs. Mission accomplished.
The Democrats have bemoaned the massacres in Rwanda for years. Samantha Powers was appointed first by Obama and then reappointed by Biden to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations all because of her bestselling book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
The Democrats supported the 1995 U.S. military interventions in the Balkans when the Serbs massacred the Bosnians. The Democrats made an albeit failed attempt to support the anti-Communists in Cuba.
Trump's actions in Iran are consistent with U.S. foreign policy in similar situations. If he were a Democrat, he'd be hailed as a hero by the media.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Unless Iran is reduced to begging for mercy, the operation is a failure.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If the attack was just a random action with no fixed purpose, there is no way to say whether it was a failure or not.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
There's any number of things that could happen here. Suppose America extracts all the uranium (enriched or otherwise) from the country. Then suppose the same 'death to America' clowns stay in power. It'll take 'em ten years or so to get back to where they started.
Suppose Iran's neighbors aren't happy about being bombed. Suppose America bombs Iran's military down to scrap and then backs out. Why wouldn't the Saudis invade?
Suppose China doesn't like having their oil supply cut off. Suppose they sit the Ayatollahs down to a stern talking to, that if their schtick is even likely to get America to turn off the taps again they'll come in themselves and regulate.
Suppose the next cardboard cutout they elevate is a little more invested in his personal survival. Suppose he only gives lip service to building a bomb. That he focuses more on staying in power than getting a weapon.
I get that no one wants another forever war. But people are jumping from zero to quagmire awfully quick.
You're seeing five of 95 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.