Leroy wrote on Mar 20^th, 2026 at 3:45pm:



Do we have:
aviation fuel?
diesel?
petrol?

Bobby. wrote on Mar 20^th, 2026 at 3:17pm:


Why not? Austerity, innit.

Get with the program, Bobby. We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no?

Bobby. wrote on Mar 20^th, 2026 at 3:46pm:

Seriously, folks, Iran has been a problem for every US president from Jimmy Carter onwards. Neither threats nor Obama’s gift of planeloads of cash did the trick. President after president said that Iran can’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Trump dropped bunker-buster bombs on three of its nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — in June last year to bring an end to the Twelve-Day War. Yet still the mullahs made their plans against us. According to US negotiators, the Iranians across the table claimed that Iran still had enough fissile material to make 11 bombs. No sign of them backing down. It seems that they are unreachable by diplomacy or by any other non-military means of persuasion or coercion.


The mullahs and their government apparatchiks think that Iran has the right to enrich uranium and to build bombs and missiles if it wishes. From their standpoint, it is an Allah-given right. Similarly, I think Australia has the right to enrich uranium (even if the Labor Party doesn’t) and to build nuclear weapons. In fact, in view of our lack of military readiness and the gathering storm, it might be an idea worth considering. What’s the difference?

The difference is that the Iranian regime is evil and the Australian regime is not, full stop. And evil regimes arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction should be stopped in their tracks before it becomes too late, if that is at all possible. This is not a subjective assessment. It is the kind of objective assessment which insists that Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were evil. That the Nazis were evil. And that it would have been better if they had been stopped before they committed their god-awful atrocities. When evil stares you in the face it is a cop out to equivocate.

Finally, to repeat my question to those who have an alternative plan to Trump’s but seem reticent about revealing it. How the heck can Iran’s nuclear facilities be taken out without bombing them to smithereens? Please explain.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/middle-east/if-not-trumps-way-what/

Finally, to repeat my question to those who have an alternative plan to Trump’s but seem reticent about revealing it. How the heck can Iran’s nuclear facilities be taken out without bombing them to smithereens? Please explain.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/middle-east/if-not-trumps-way-what/

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2026 at 7:51am:


I'm genuinely interested in having this conversation, but we're not skipping the most basic question just to pretend the current mess is inevitable or strategically sound.

Before anyone starts demanding alternative plans to Donald Trump's approach, can we establish, clearly and without the usual deflection, what the actual objective of this war with Iran is supposed to be?

What is the endgame?

Is it regime change? Nuclear deterrence? Total dismantling of their program? Regional dominance? Because "bombing facilities to smithereens" isn't a strategy, it's a tactic, and a reckless one at that if it's not tied to a coherent, achievable outcome.

You don't get to demand detailed alternatives while remaining conveniently vague about the goalposts. That's not serious analysis, it's post hoc justification.

So let's start there.

What, specifically, is the objective here, and how does this war achieve it?

Anyone?

Frank?

tallowood wrote on Mar 24^th, 2026 at 11:34am:


Thanks Tallo.  The first thing that stands out is that's not a strategy, it's a wishlist. And a completely incoherent one at that.

You've just listed four objectives, dismantle the nuclear program, eliminate ballistic missiles, shut down drone production, and achieve regime change, as if they're all interchangeable outcomes of the same blunt-force approach. They're not. Each one requires a different strategy, different timelines, and in some cases they actively undermine each other.

Let's break it down with what has already happened under Trump:

1. Dismantling the nuclear program
There was already a functioning framework: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It imposed inspections, limits, and transparency. Trump tore it up. The result? Iran accelerated enrichment, reduced oversight, and moved closer to weapons capability. That's not dismantling the program, it's turbocharging it.

2. Destroying ballistic missile capabilities
Airstrikes don't magically erase a dispersed, redundant missile program. These systems are mobile, buried, and designed to survive exactly this kind of attack. Temporary disruption is all you get; permanent success is impossible without occupation. Instead, you provoke them to expand and harden the program.

3. Shutting down drone manufacturing
Same story, same failure. These capabilities are decentralised, low-cost, and easily rebuilt. Bombing infrastructure doesn't stop production long-term, it delays it, at best. The collateral damage only fuels resentment and provides propaganda for the regime.

4. Regime change
Here's the kicker: Trump's actions haven't weakened Iran's leadership, they've strengthened it in all the ways that make your other objectives objectively worse. The current leadership, centred around the son who has effectively taken over, is more hardline, more pro-nuclear, and far less willing to negotiate. Every strike, every act of pressure has reinforced the regime's narrative of external threat, which consolidates internal control and accelerates nuclear development. Trump hasn't made progress; he's actively made every one of your first three objectives harder to achieve.

This is why Frank's framing is backwards. You don't start with "how do we bomb this harder?" You start with achievable outcomes.

To answer Frank's question bluntly, compared to the outcomes Trump has achieved with Iran alone, never mind the global economic damage, oil and fertiliser shortages, and general instability, the better approach would have been to do NOTHING, just like with most Trump actions in office.

Every escalation, every "deal" or threat, has made the situation objectively worse.

But to propose alternative actions, I'd start with Nuclear containment. Stick with multilateral agreements like the JCPOA, inspections, and verification.

Regional stability? De-escalate, engage diplomatically, and work through institutions like the United Nations.

Internal political change? That comes through economic pressure, diplomacy, and fostering internal dissent, not by turning Iran into a rallying point for hardliners.

What you've outlined isn't a plan, it's maximalist fan fiction dressed up as strategy. And the fact that every "objective" you listed has objectively worsened under Trump's reckless approach proves it.

Aggression is not achievement, at least not outside the cult of MAGA, the real world...

Quote:


These are objectives not strategies.

Strategy for example to achieve the regime change is combination of physical removal, denying access to resources, e.g. finance, fomenting population unrest, etc..
Tactics for physical removal are airstrikes, assassination by agents, etc..
Quote:


To fully achieve an objective have to be persistent and don't let inner and outer detractors to stop you halfway.