The SteelNavy.Com Message Board: Re: Who needs USN Minesweepers now? Who made the choice to mothball them?

As far as Venezuala, regime change was wanted. Once he got the cooperation of the existing government, regime change was no longer needed. You think he wanted it changed for some sort of noble humanitarian reasons? Yeah, he didn't like their oil policies, nor their connection/relationship to the flow of drugs to this country. The current regime is no longer operating that way. So, he doesn't need regime change. You make "regime change" the goal, then say he just wanted oil after all. He was prepared to get the oil through regime change. He got it differently.

When we last executed regime change in Iran, it did not require a full scale invasion. Why must it require one this time? In any case, we both agree that this war won't acheive that. He realized from their riots that they were dissatisfied, and naively assumed that, if he decapitated the regime with strikes, the people would step in and overthrow the remnants of the government (and love the US for the opportunity, thus forming a friendlier new government.) "Look folks! I bombed your country, killed your unsatisfactory leaders (and your school kids and businesses and loved ones) so now you can love us." Yup, uh-huh. The fact that he totally blundered the execution does not negate that it was a goal of his. Just means he's already failed at it.

As far as a) above...if our intelligence agencies don't have good info on it, Mossad most certainly does. They would have a list of sites and scientists they want gone. Once those items were checked off, that would likely be the objective. If more emerges later, yes they might get attacked again. The goal would not have been achieved after all. You're right, it is difficult to squash. Still, the goal is to squash it, repeatedly if required.

We are also pretty obviously destroying their naval and conventional military facilities. That would make another goal of reducing them as a regional threat. That type of thing is nothing new to Trump. Our operations against Sadam Hussein and Iraq were about the same thing. Demonstrating that we will actively interfere pretty much anywhere (and especially the Middle East), under pretexts of our creation, any time and regardless of who is leading. Johnson took us off into Vietnam in a big way (after the two prior administrations had involved us at a lower profile.) Our whole history since WWII has been us going into places and situations we're not happy about.

So, now you're unhappy with Trump...what he's doing, and how he's going about doing it. That's perfectly okay, and I understand. To my view, though, Trump's not doing anything especially novel or shocking. History will judge him by his accomplishments and failures, not his personality.

Who remembers Andrew Jackson's temper? (Who remembers Andrew Jackson?) He's on our $20 bill, and most people here probably still don't know who he was. This is AI generated:

"Andrew Jackson (1767–1845) was a fiercely combative, strong-willed, and charismatic leader known for his "common man" populism and volatile temper. As a "passionate, action-first" figure, he was often described as courageous and stubborn (earning the nickname "Old Hickory"), but also authoritarian, vindictive, and reckless, with a tendency to personalize disputes."

So, Trump's really nothing new for me. Since we're in this cockamamie war, I just want us to win it. We may not be able to define what victory is, but we all seem to fear defeat, indicating we know what "not victory" is, at least.

Previous Message

It is not as clear as you claim. Trump used different arguments and provided no explanation as to why he claimed one year ago that the nuclear programme had been destroyed, yet now claims that it is different. Do you have any new information, or are you simply assuming that there will be some? I know there were arguments that the nuclear programme was not destroyed during the Twelve-Day War in 2025. These arguments were made in 2025. That would not constitute new evidence.

He claims that he wanted a change of regime. Yet he is asking the Iranians to rise up. In other words, he has no plan to do it himself in case the revolution does not happen (which is extremely likely, as revolutions rarely happen under such conditions).

More importantly, in the case of Venezuela, all of Trump's arguments for attacking the country — such as drugs and regime change — suddenly became irrelevant once he secured access to Venezuelan oil.

OK, let's assume that Trump has the goals he claims to have.
(a) What would constitute proof that the Iranian nuclear programme had been destroyed? You cannot erase all the knowledge about it. In order to end the programme, an agreement and controls would be necessary — precisely the kind of agreement that the JCPOA of 2015 was. Otherwise, it cannot be properly controlled. There is no clear measure of success. The goal is very vague and could be used to end one war and start another at will. Such a goal cannot be achieved; it would only be propaganda.

(b) To ensure regime change under the current conditions would require a full-scale invasion and the complete occupation of Iran, as well as significant investment in a new state. I do not consider this to be likely. I doubt Trump would initiate such an invasion because of the likely high number of US casualties (But I am not sure about that. Trump changes his mind all the time, and it wouldn't be him who would be at risk. After all, he successfully avoided the draft and the Vietnam War and now is safe in the US). However, I am sure that Trump would never invest significantly in a new state — he only wants to make a profit.

Trump has an obvious exit strategy. He will simply claim that he was successful. He won't care whether he was or not. Then he will move on to something else, such as attacking Cuba. He may attack Iran again later. Can you name all the countries that Trump has already attacked militarily? I assume this would set a record for a US president. He has already attacked Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran twice.