tallowood wrote on Mar 24
th, 2026 at 12:54pm:
Quote:The first thing that stands out is that's not a strategy, it's a wishlist. And a completely incoherent one at that.
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:AI Overview
As of March 24, 2026, a significant portion of Iran's top leadership was killed following a series of strikes by the US and Israel beginning in late February. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in early strikes
, prompting a leadership transition with Mojtaba Khamenei mentioned as a successor. Key casualties included intelligence, security, and military leaders, leading to severe disruption in Iran's command structure
To fully achieve an objective have to be persistent and don't let inner and outer detractors to stop you halfway.
This is true, however those objectives require entirely different strategies, and what we're seeing instead is incoherent flailing masquerading as policy.
So far it's been a farce, "we don't like the agreement you made with our predecessor, so we'll tear it up, demand you do the same thing and bomb you until you comply, hey why are you retaliating, stop it, if you don't we'll escalate, you've got 48 hours, actually no escalation, we're negotiating, but also don't point out that no talks have happened or we'll bomb you again."
This whole disaster traces back to Trump's complete lack of strategic consistency, not just in tearing up existing agreements, but in his inability to maintain a coherent position for more than five minutes. The justifications shift, the threats shift, the deadlines shift, it's policy by impulse rather than design.
You say:
"To fully achieve an objective have to be persistent"
I agree, but tell me where that's happening currently, within a single administration even!?
And that matters, because the objectives you listed are not interchangeable, they demand precision, patience, and credibility, three things this approach utterly lacks. "We'll bomb you more" is not a strategy, it's an admission of a total lack of strategy, and for most of those goals it's not just ineffective, it's actively counterproductive.
The collateral damage and inevitable retaliation are now rippling through global oil markets, fertiliser supply, and broader trade networks, and for what, there is nothing to show for it. No strategic gain, no stabilisation, just escalating costs being offloaded onto the global economy.
And for Americans who have already head to suffer higher prices because of his tariffs, tax increases and less job opportunities etc, it's another price increase they can't afford.
From here, the pathways narrow quickly, escalation into a ground war with thousands of dead US service members, a slide toward nuclear confrontation, or an eventual retreat dressed up as something else. The current approach achieves none of the stated objectives, which means the pressure to escalate will only intensify unless there's a climbdown.
And the reality is, the only plausible mechanisms for that climbdown are extreme, either he's removed from power or physically incapable of continuing. That's what makes this so genuinely dangerous, not just the incompetence itself, but the unwavering, almost wilful refusal of his supporters to recognise it.
They are quite literally cheering on policies that will materially damage their own lives, and they're too ideologically captured to see it. The warnings were there before the election, they were dismissed, and they'll keep being dismissed now.
By the time that changes, if it ever does, the damage will already be done.
I'm so tired of trying to help these types of people that I'm starting to think they need the leopard to eat their faces, and I should just let it happen.