Trump: evacuate Tehran

[Pyrite]

Point of order: There are no secret sites. Our intel weenies spend an awful lot of time looking at satellite images to watch for massive amounts of earth-moving activities.

If you have a million cubic feet of installation, that means a million cubic feet of mountain had to go somewhere.

And I am operating under the assumption that the final blow will be delivered by our B2s...And we can most certainly reach them. Might take a few tries.

Good point. Thanks.

Probably take several tries - if that works. Some analysts I've read posit that the coup de grace might have to be delivered via the ground / not by air.

And, yes, only the USAF has access to the B-2 stealth bombers.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Good point. Thanks.

Probably take several tries - if that works. Some analysts I've read posit that the coup de grace might have to be delivered via the ground / not by air.

And, yes, only the USAF has access to the B-2 stealth bombers.

The problem with special forces is they are just as defeated as anyone else by a massive blast door.

I mean, now WOULD be the time to do it, as nothing flies over Iran that isn't Israeli, so getting helicopters in wouldn't be too troublesome. But since we know nothing of what is inside the bunkers, it is a little risky.

 

[Pyrite]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/17/massive-ordnance-penetrator-iran-bunker-buster/

...Which underground Iranian sites are likely targets?

Iran’s most deeply buried nuclear enrichment site is Fordow, in the desert southwest of Tehran.

The facility is fully underground, carved into a mountainside. U.N. inspectors who viewed the site noted tunnels with thick walls and blastproof doors, with some bunkers protected by up to 300 feet of rock, The Post reported in 2012.

Fordow is ostensibly designed to produce uranium enriched to 20 percent purity. But an International Atomic Energy Agency inspection report on May 31 found that Iran had significantly increased its production there of 60 percent enriched uranium, approaching the 90 percent level needed to fuel a nuclear weapon....

How have Israeli attacks affected Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Iran’s nuclear facilities were not irreversibly damaged in the first couple waves of Israeli attacks, based on statements from both countries as well as videos and imagery of the damaged sites, The Washington Post reported.

Israel appeared to have attacked near Fordow, but did not hit the underground facility itself. Strikes at Natanz, Iran’s other main enrichment site, destroyed several facilities and damaged the electrical system, according to the IAEA and nonproliferation experts. Iran’s only above-ground enrichment site, part of a larger complex at Natanz known as the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, was destroyed, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said Monday.

Analysts viewing satellite imagery had originally said the underground enrichment machinery at Natanz was unscathed. But the IAEA said in a post Tuesday on X that its analyses “indicate direct impacts on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.”

A uranium metal production facility in Isfahan, a military complex in Parchin and the Arak heavy water reactor southwest of Tehran and the Bushehr nuclear power plant are other nuclear sites that were hit, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

Grossi confirmed the facility at Isfahan was hit but said Bushehr was not targeted or affected.

 

[anatta]

Good point. Thanks.

Probably take several tries - if that works. Some analysts I've read posit that the coup de grace might have to be delivered via the ground / not by air.

And, yes, only the USAF has access to the B-2 stealth bombers.

I saw a graphic where they use a double tap. the first open up the target hole and the second collapses the target as it's dropped into the exact same location,,I cant find a graphic

 

[anatta]

Yeah, I don't like this and what it portends. And the last thing I want is for the US to be involved in it.

And it's starting to feel more and more like a long shot. What I hope he means is there's intel that it's gonna get bad there and he's just telling people get out. It's not us, but what's not us really?

I'm an old hippie. I am no fan of war.

I'm an old hippie. I am no fan of war.

me as well. now they call it kinetic military action, or deny a proxy war funding is complicit in the war...like Ukraine.
Anyways that's a topic to itself. Peace out brother

 

[Along Came Jones]

For reasons that elude me, the precepts and principles of war taught in college introductory military history courses (my college's ROTC) never seem to take root at the higher levels of policy making. If it did, politicians and generals would insist on having a grand strategy, a theater strategy, an operational level plan, and a set of objective benchmarks for success or failure (or in between). Yet it seems we have gone in without having much strategy or planning at all - at least beyond the immediate operational needs.

Nor does it seem that the institutional lessons learned are lasting, limited to recalling those lessons acquired in the last Gulf war (1990), but no earlier. Vietnam taught a lot of hard lessons about insurgency warfare between 1964 and 1o 1969, one of them being the pointlessness of using body counts from search and destroy missions as a benchmark for success, rather than focusing on winning the hearts and minds of innocent and terrified civilians in such a war.

In short, the US belatedly accepted in 1969 that the British already had already shown how to successfully fight counter-insurgencies in Malaysia - you must clear areas and protect. Only by protecting villages and populations from retribution can trust be established and eventually give confidence in the population to join militias and cooperate. Leaving a population open to retribution after the American forces leave is a good way to never succeed. (Note, after 69 the VC was effectively neutered so the NVA took over as a conventional force and the nature of the war changed).

Yet, in spite of these learnings, the allied occupying forces in Iraq were clueless. The General that took over at the beginning of the Iraq war of occupation, Gen. John Abizaid, wasn't old enough to be in Vietnam, and his combat experience was limited to Grenada and the Gulf War. Hence, a generation of officers if they were taught counter-insurgency doctrine they never had the vision or leadership in Iraq to use it properly - not until after three years of insurgency, in 2006, a field commander named McMaster revitalized the doctrine and made it effective - to everyone's amazement.

When it comes to strategy and operational planning, no war should be entered into without a clear grasp of realistic objectives and costs, as well as a pre-determined red line where it is no longer worth fighting. And if one is to fight a war, one does not dither and oscillate over the employment of force. You hit as hard and fast as you can limited only by what you know you will never do. If you fail, you will know it quite early and you don't stick around, having done your best you withdraw or sue for peace.

Half-measures rarely work and only prolong the agony of war.

Though it is not mentioned anywhere I've seen, Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan seemed to be an approach used by the British in putting down the Arab revolt in Mesopotamia after WWI. Yeah, I suppose, that would be my uncorroborated opinion. But, on the chance it is a correct opinion, general officers are not vouched safe by lessons learned. McChrystal was fired because his staff said the wrong stuff to a Rolling Stone reporter.

 

[Pyrite]

I saw a graphic where they use a double tap. the first open up the target hole and the second collapses the target as it's dropped into the exact same location,,I cant find a graphic

And there's also "daisy-chaining".

 

[Aristaeus]

An ethno-nationalist state involved in at best ethnic cleansing, and potentially worse, fighting a theocratic dictatorship that throws gay people off roofs.

Am I meant to choose a side??

 

[gman]

You do understand the U.S. sent heavy naval forces to the Middle East to attack Houthis who were attacking Red Sea shipping and U.S.naval vessels. Houthis are a client of Iran. So, by extension, we are in a war with Iran.

We’re responding to years of getting poked in the eye by the regime. The worm has turned.

 

[ElChupacabra]

My god, they're so clueless.

The thing is one can certainly have a different view on the topic, the issue I find with the posters who just parrot things is there's no rationale as to why they hold those views. The fun in debating is exactly that exchange.

 

[ElChupacabra]

An ethno-nationalist state involved in at best ethnic cleansing, and potentially worse, fighting a theocratic dictatorship that throws gay people off roofs.

Am I meant to choose a side??

Yeah, the side of the people in those countries who want nothing to do with this nonsense.

 

[ElChupacabra]

For reasons that elude me, the precepts and principles of war taught in college introductory military history courses (my college's ROTC) never seem to take root at the higher levels of policy making. If it did, politicians and generals would insist on having a grand strategy, a theater strategy, an operational level plan, and a set of objective benchmarks for success or failure (or in between). Yet it seems we have gone in without having much strategy or planning at all - at least beyond the immediate operational needs.

Nor does it seem that the institutional lessons learned are lasting, limited to recalling those lessons acquired in the last Gulf war (1990), but no earlier. Vietnam taught a lot of hard lessons about insurgency warfare between 1964 and 1o 1969, one of them being the pointlessness of using body counts from search and destroy missions as a benchmark for success, rather than focusing on winning the hearts and minds of innocent and terrified civilians in such a war.

In short, the US belatedly accepted in 1969 that the British already had already shown how to successfully fight counter-insurgencies in Malaysia - you must clear areas and protect. Only by protecting villages and populations from retribution can trust be established and eventually give confidence in the population to join militias and cooperate. Leaving a population open to retribution after the American forces leave is a good way to never succeed. (Note, after 69 the VC was effectively neutered so the NVA took over as a conventional force and the nature of the war changed).

Yet, in spite of these learnings, the allied occupying forces in Iraq were clueless. The General that took over at the beginning of the Iraq war of occupation, Gen. John Abizaid, wasn't old enough to be in Vietnam, and his combat experience was limited to Grenada and the Gulf War. Hence, a generation of officers if they were taught counter-insurgency doctrine they never had the vision or leadership in Iraq to use it properly - not until after three years of insurgency, in 2006, a field commander named McMaster revitalized the doctrine and made it effective - to everyone's amazement.

When it comes to strategy and operational planning, no war should be entered into without a clear grasp of realistic objectives and costs, as well as a pre-determined red line where it is no longer worth fighting. And if one is to fight a war, one does not dither and oscillate over the employment of force. You hit as hard and fast as you can limited only by what you know you will never do. If you fail, you will know it quite early and you don't stick around, having done your best you withdraw or sue for peace.

Half-measures rarely work and only prolong the agony of war.

Spot on. What I would add is now we have the risk of a president who loves to project strength at the helm, which adds the nutter factor to the mix.

 

[Sweden]

Yeah, the side of the people in those countries who want nothing to do with this nonsense.

Destroying the power of a rogue state like Iran is about as far remoed from 'nonsense' as one can get. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a danger to world peace even without nuclear weapons. Israel deserves not only our support but our gratitude as Merz, the German Chancellor, has said.

German Chancellor: Thanks Israel, It Does Our Dirty Work For Us

The FRG Chancellor expressed support for Israeli actions in Iran.

charter97.org

 

[ElChupacabra]

Destroying the power of a rogue state like Iran is about as far remoed from 'nonsense' as one can get. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a danger to world peace even without nuclear weapons. Israel deserves not only our support but our gratitude as Merz, the German Chancellor, has said.

German Chancellor: Thanks Israel, It Does Our Dirty Work For Us

The FRG Chancellor expressed support for Israeli actions in Iran.

charter97.org

That's a position, the problem is no one's articulated what the plan is after. We have no idea what or who would replace the regime and what back up plan the clerics have to regain power should that happen. I referred to it as "nonsense" because there's little discussion of the "day after", and since this is all too familiar with the very same rhetoric used to depose Saddam Hussein, it's hard not to be skeptical. In Iran we have a mess of the west's own making, since meddling in their affairs for western interests is how we got here to begin with.

If I were to take the position of deposing the current regime, then I'd at least want to have an idea as to how the country is managed after the fact. That's a scenario none of the people advocating deposing the current regime haven't answered, except some have said "freedom loving Iranians" or something to that effect, which isn't really a succession plan. There's also the difference between destroying the power of a state and leaving it in chaos, and we know that can be worse than what was deposed.

 

[gbg3]

Iran would be incredibly foolish to give up on trying to gain nukes which, after all, are the only thing to ensure the US and Israel can’t attempt to attack them again like they currently are.

And Israel’s mass murder campaign in Gaza makes it pretty clear targeting civilians is their standard MO.

I won't take time to even try to dispute your Iran support demonstrated here. You do you.

 

[gbg3]

Destroying the power of a rogue state like Iran is about as far remoed from 'nonsense' as one can get. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a danger to world peace even without nuclear weapons. Israel deserves not only our support but our gratitude as Merz, the German Chancellor, has said.

German Chancellor: Thanks Israel, It Does Our Dirty Work For Us

The FRG Chancellor expressed support for Israeli actions in Iran.

charter97.org

100% agreement!!!

 

[Airyaman]

This may be the toughest decision he's ever made: say no to his Russian boss or no to Jewish American oligarchs.

Who will Trump choose, Vlad P. or the US Jewish oligarchs?

 

[Sweden]

That's a position, the problem is no one's articulated what the plan is after. We have no idea what or who would replace the regime and what back up plan the clerics have to regain power should that happen. I referred to it as "nonsense" because there's little discussion of the "day after", and since this is all too familiar with the very same rhetoric used to depose Saddam Hussein, it's hard not to be skeptical. In Iran we have a mess of the west's own making, since meddling in their affairs for western interests is how we got here to begin with.

If I were to take the position of deposing the current regime, then I'd at least want to have an idea as to how the country is managed after the fact. That's a scenario none of the people advocating deposing the current regime haven't answered, except some have said "freedom loving Iranians" or something to that effect, which isn't really a succession plan. There's also the difference between destroying the power of a state and leaving it in chaos, and we know that can be worse than what was deposed.

It i for he Iranian people to remove the current regime and to decide what will replace it. As you say there must be no meddling in Iran's affairs. This must be so because the country will not be occupied.as was Iraq for example. So there can be no outside 'plan' for the future.

The 'mess' that the evil theocracy is in is not the fault of 'the West' but of the Iranians themselves, the authors of their own misfortunes.

 

[Sweden]

100% agreement!!!

Thank you.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Also good job Donald causing mass panic of civilians in a highly populous city at 2AM.

El Taco has no concept of what he is implying and he doesn't care.

 

[Tigerace117]

I won't take time to even try to dispute your Iran support demonstrated here. You do you.

Blind denial can’t change the facts.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It i for he Iranian people to remove the current regime and to decide what will replace it. As you say there must be no meddling in Iran's affairs. This must be so because the country will not be occupied.as was Iraq for example. So there can be no outside 'plan' for the future.

Right, and there's been no articulated response as to who and what that would look like. Added to the confusion is mixed messaging about what the goal actually is, since there's Netanyahu claiming it's just about nuclear capability and Trump posting veiled threats against Khamenei and killing off senior government officials. The US and Israel are not going to leave caution to the wind, because what they will want is a nation that will not be a threat, so they'd want someone friendly to the west. This is where the meddling comes in.

The 'mess' that the evil theocracy is in is not the fault of 'the West' but of the Iranians themselves, the authors of their own misfortunes.

The immediate conflict was started by Israel, but Iran's also a player here because they've been trying to exert their power and influence in the region as well. We can disagree with Iran's goals in the region, but they are a player applying many of the same tactics their Sunni counterparts have as well. The focus has been on Iran because they are antagonistic to US interests in the region.

 

[jaypatriot]

The thing is one can certainly have a different view on the topic, the issue I find with the posters who just parrot things is there's no rationale as to why they hold those views. The fun in debating is exactly that exchange.

If you're going to debate the Israeli-Iran crisis, then do it using common sense and what it means to Israel's existence and peace in the region.
If the dying snake is still deadly, then cut off its head and/or get rid of what makes it deadly to the region.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Right, and there's been no articulated response as to who and what that would look like. Added to the confusion is mixed messaging about what the goal actually is, since there's Netanyahu claiming it's just about nuclear capability and Trump posting veiled threats against Khamenei and killing off senior government officials. The US and Israel are not going to leave caution to the wind, because what they will want is a nation that will not be a threat, so they'd want someone friendly to the west. This is where the meddling comes in.


The immediate conflict was started by Israel, but Iran's also a player here because they've been trying to exert their power and influence in the region as well. We can disagree with Iran's goals in the region, but they are a player applying many of the same tactics their Sunni counterparts have as well. The focus has been on Iran because they are antagonistic to US interests in the region.

If the regime falls, my hazy crystal ball tells me the clerical establishment will continue to exert their historical influence. But factions within the majority Persians will compete among themselves and with competing factions from the oppressed minority Arabs, Kurds, and Turkic peoples. (Not to mention about ten other smaller minority groups.) In other words, no matter which outsiders have a plan for post Islamic Iran, internally there will be chaos with no clear favorite in sight.

 

[Callen]

What a mess. One has to wonder if the world would be in this position if Trump hadn't cancelled the Accord. Nonetheless, we are. The worrisome thing is that what this war, the war in Gaza, as well as other attacks Israel has made in the region , guarantees a new generation of terrorists. The cycle will never stop until negotiations and treaties replace wars.