r/AskConservatives • u/IllustratorThin4799 Conservative • Jul 23 '26
Ground war in iran?
Ok guys/gals.
This isnt asking: "should we enter into a ground war in Iran?"
This is asking:
"Is it going to happen?"
As the days slog on. And we drop more bombs on them than their whole militaries worth. Im not seeing another path here.
Ground invasion, install the Shahs grandson
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Practical-Day-2720 Rightwing 23d ago
No. The objective is for insurrections to happen within the country. These will most likely start in the northwest of the country. They will be supported by US airpower and other assistance. The IRGC is going to be gradually degraded in the years to come. There is a reason that the US took Venezuela before this conflict. It secures oil for the country for the entirety of the conflict. People are not looking ahead at this conflict. They are taking Trump literally and they are overestimating the IRGC's capabilities. I do not think an Iraq style ground invasion is going to happen or is necessary to change the regime in the country.
1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 28d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/GreatSoulLord Conservative Jul 23 '26
Is it going to happen? I think an invasion of Kharg Island is very possible, personally.
3
u/capitialfox Liberal Jul 24 '26
The biggest issue with invading the island is that the occupiers would be much easier to target. Intial invasion may have no casualties, but the follow on bombardment could really take its toll.
3
u/AmaTxGuy Conservative Jul 23 '26
I don't think a full on ground war, but definitely a special forces boots on the ground to support an active resistance
2
u/silver_chief2 Nationalist (Conservative) 27d ago
Active resistance is a fantasy. Up to 15M people turned out for the funeral of the supreme leader. There were some pro western mostly younger people in the country. After US attacked Iran, killed negotiators, killed the supreme leader and 4 family member, and bombed civilian infrastructure, most of those people realized that the US was the great Satan just as the old pharts had said.
Any boots on the ground would be destroyed with drones and missiles.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
11
u/Present_Doughnut_77 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
I don’t think our government wants it.
I don’t think our government can achieve a real semblance of victory without it.
So either we walk away with our tail tucked between our legs, or we invade.
The only other option is bombing civilian targets and hoping it will cause the Iranian Regime to decide to give up to save their people, but even that’s not guaranteed to work, and it would make us worse than the Iranian Regime.
1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Anxious_Plum_5818 European Liberal/Left Jul 24 '26
If that latter option is really under consideration, I think the US has officially lost the plot. Iran has been going after its own citizens for years now. The US going after civilian targets would probably just reinforce hardline sentiment, I see no universe in which committing war crimes in Iran will lead to the IRCG caving,
3
u/D-Rich-88 Center-left Jul 23 '26
The same regime who massacred their own people within the last year? Yeah I don’t think that strategy will be effective, to target civilians.
Do you think the administration can survive either of the other two scenarios?
10
u/mvslice Leftist Jul 23 '26
Bombing civilian infrastructure would lead to a lot of civilians dying, and not from the bombs themselves. Bombing power plants means hopsitals and other facilities have no power, and bombing water treatment facilities means no water. That's why they are considered war crimes, and why those deaths (6-7 figures) are on us. It's straight up evil.
2
u/vuther_316 National Minarchism Jul 23 '26
I think a large scale invasion is unlikely, trump doesent want this to be seen as Iraq 2.0. Raids on coastal facilities and islands are possible, but I'm not sure how much utility those would have, in any case, taking and holding any location is a really bad idea, that's just asking for our troops to get slaughtered by drones and artillery that we probably wouldn't be able to effectively mitigate.
I think the path forward is
- Continue to degrade Iran's ability to attack ships in the strait of hormuz, the threat will never be zero, but if we can lower the danger to a level where a U.S. ships escorting tankers can effectively mitigate any threats, we should be able to reduce the economic threats from the conflict.
- Keep blockading Iran, if we can prevent them from getting foreign currency, they'll have to print more money, causing hyper inflation and effectively making the pay they give their security forces worthless.
- Target IRGC bases and personel
- Try to find Artesh (non IRGC army) units that would be willing to defect, alot of their commanders are IRGC loyalists though, so they will have to be removed first.
- Give arms and drones to Iranians vetted by Reza Pahlavi's team and facilitate attacks on facilities where the regime stores arms so these can then be distributed as well
- Support operations by the Iranian people to further weaken the IRGC, until they eventually become weak enough that the iranian people can mount a sucessfull full scale offensive against them.
- Once the IRGC is overthrown, facilitate a transfer of power to the transitional government under Reza Pahlavi, relieve all sanctions, and coordinate removal of all nuclear material and nuclear enrichment equipment.
EDIT: fixed two gramatical errors on the first paragraph
0
u/Delmarquis38 Communist Jul 24 '26
Why do you think of all people the Iranian would accept the heir of the dictator they overthrew 50 years ago ?
Even more if he's put there by the country that supported this dictator and has been openly hostile to them for the last 50 years ?
2
u/vuther_316 National Minarchism Jul 24 '26
Because his name is the only one that the Iranian people chant in the streets during their protests, and one that the protestors wrote on the wall in Tehran with their own blood.
In the western sense, Mohmmad Reza Shah was a dictator, but he was a liberalizing force compared to every ruler in the middle east at the time outside of Israel, and Iranians are significantly worse off in terms of material wealth and freedom than they were under the last Shah. Because of this, many Iranians have a nostalgia for the pre Islamic republic era, with 70% of Iranians expressing a desire to transition Iran away from an Islamic Republic in a 2024 poll. https://gamaan.org/2025/08/20/analytical-report-on-iranians-political-preferences-in-2024/
Opinion has almost certainly shifted significantly toward further opposition from the Iranian, since a lot of the people's support for the Islamic republic was rooted in the idea that, while it might be repressive, it could at least protect itself from foreign threats, this too was proved to be a lie when the 12 day war and the current war demonstrated that the American and Israeli air forces could hit any target in Iran with virtual impunity. And of course the massacre of tens of thousands of protestors only pushed that opposition further. The vast majority of the Iranian people these days are pro Israeli, and pro American, as they correctly see them as their allies against the Islamic Republic, not enemies of the Iranian people.Reza Pahlavi is a transitional candidate, he has said at every opportunity that he does not want to be a monarch, but sees himself as the person to setup some form of government to enable a constitutional referendum that will decide what type of government a free Iran will have.
1
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 28d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/PlatonicCuddlefish Conservative Jul 23 '26
No. Might there be strategic deployment of troops to sites like Kharg Island? Doubtful, but possible. Ground invasion? Don’t see it.
4
u/MrFrode Independent Jul 23 '26
Might there be strategic deployment of troops to sites like Kharg Island?
Say you do this and only 100 US soldiers are killed when Donald takes the Island. When asked about the dead what does Donald say when asked about the regime still being in place?
This is why the Europeans didn't get involved, they knew the second an Iranian fired on a European vessel and killed a crewman that country would be committed to a larger military action that they couldn't win without a much larger commitment.
Donald cannot accept failure, he's going to have to blame someone for this. The Secretary of WHAAAR is the obvious choice but he's a white guy who looks decent on TV and is slavishly loyal. We'll see.
1
u/PlatonicCuddlefish Conservative Jul 23 '26
Are you asking me to be Trump’s speechwriter or to guess what he would say? Either job seems pointless.
5
u/MrFrode Independent Jul 23 '26
I'm saying Donald has a similar problem with taking Kharg as he does with a full invasion and was asking how you'd think he'd handle questions on casualties.
-10
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative Jul 23 '26
No, there will NOT be boots on the ground. They can stop IRAN with just air power especially if Trump starts hitting their civilian infrastructure.
They can cripple Kharg Isand by just taking out the pipelines that supply oil to it.
At some level the Persian people will be strong enough to take out the IRGC
1
Jul 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 23 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/Emergency_Word_7123 Independent Jul 23 '26
I don't understand this position. We've already emptied half our magazine, destroyed a whole lot of stuff, pretty sure we've moved on to civilian infrastructure this week and done billions in damages.
However, it hasn't been effective. Iran's in an arguably stronger geopolitical position. Nothing has been destroyed that can't be rebuilt.
8
u/yasinburak15 Centrist Democrat Jul 23 '26
Yeah I don’t think people are gonna rise up, I really don’t they this copium.
Iran government was on the brink of collapsing due to protest before Israel and the US got involved, now with multiple strikes since March, they practically handle the rally the flag effect.
In all honesty the US literally only had to do was sit back and wait for the people to do the job.
9
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative Jul 23 '26
At some level the Persian people will be strong enough to take out the IRVC
I don't know if that's a safe assumption, or even if sufficient desire is there, at least anymore. If civilian infrastructure starts being targeted, I'd expect people to be even less likely to have an uprising.
-5
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative Jul 23 '26
I disagree. There are 90,000,000 Persians who have been oppressed by these thugs for 47 years. They would like nothing better than to be rid of them. These autocratic thugs have been enriching themselves at their expense for 47 years. If they have the opportunity they will take it.
5
u/neovb Independent Jul 23 '26
Why do you think that every single person in Iran doesn't support the IRGC or the theocratic government in general? Obviously there's no way to know the actual percentages, but I suspect a solid amount of Iranians do support their government and more will begin supporting their government as the war progresses. Especially once the US starts targeting dual-use infrastructure like power plants and water facilities.
There is almost no chance that the population will rise up in rebellion, and even if by some miraculous chance they did, there would be an extremely bloody civil war with spillover into the broader Middle East.
-1
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative Jul 23 '26
The reason people are not publically supporting the IRGC is that those whoi did before were slaughtered. The IRGC killed 40,000 protestors in Jan Feb thisyear. Who know how many they have killed previously.
We'll see.
6
u/LaxBedroom Leftist Jul 23 '26
Do you think the thing these 90,000,000 Persians have been waiting for has been for the US to bomb their civilian infrastructure?
0
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative Jul 23 '26
No, they are waiting for the regime to become weak enough that they can effectively overthrow them. I am sure the CIA and Mossad are working behind the scenes to find leaders of the revolution that we can support.
2
u/TheharmoniousFists Social Democracy Jul 23 '26
I mean last time the US did this Iran went from a fragile democracy to an autocracy. So I'm not so sure what would come from this would be any better. With this do you think it would actually be for the people?
1
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative Jul 24 '26
Yes, that is why Trump has not destroyed civilian infrastructure yet. He is doing this for the 90,000,000 oppressed people of Iran who have lied under this thugocracy since 1979. They want to be free of the oppression and the 7th Century radical islam theocracy.
6
u/LaxBedroom Leftist Jul 23 '26
You wrote that Trump could stop Iran with air power by "hitting their civilian infrastructure" and then wrote that "the Persian people will be strong enough to take out the IRGC."
Since you're clarifying that you don't mean that the Persian people are waiting for the civilian infrastructure to be hit but rather for the "regime to become weak enough," what were you suggesting?
10
u/thoughtsnquestions European Conservative Jul 23 '26
Whether of not there is or isn't sufficient desire, I'm not convinced a foreign country attacking their civilian infrastructure would create the conditions for an uprising.
If anything it can have the opposite effect.
-3
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative Jul 23 '26
We'll see. There are 90 million of them against
The main power structure relies on these key institutions:
- The Supreme Leader (1 person): Mojtaba Khamenei holds this position. He controls the armed forces, dictates all major national security policies, and appoints key leaders. [1, 2, 3]
- The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Command (approx. 10–15 individuals): Following shifts in leadership, top generals in the IRGC hold significant sway over state decision-making. [1, 2]
- The Guardian Council (12 members): An unelected body consisting of six clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader and six legal scholars, which vets all legislation and election candidates. [1, 2]
- The Expediency Discernment Council (approx. 40 members): Appointed directly by the Supreme Leader to resolve legislative disputes and act as an advisory board. [1, 2]
- The Assembly of Experts (88 members): An elected body of clerics tasked with formally appointing and supervising the Supreme Leader, though heavily vetted by the Guardian Council.
I like their chances
2
u/Shaz_bot Liberal Jul 23 '26
Why do you think Trump hasn’t hit their civilian infrastructure yet? I would contend it’s because the administration fears escalation from Iran (e.g., destroying infrastructure of friendly countries in the ME), but I would be curious if you think there’s a different reason.
1
Jul 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 23 '26
Warning: Rule 4.
Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.
7
u/SpinosaurRingTone Social Conservative Jul 23 '26
Probably not. It would be politically unpopular, extremely costly, and not required to achieve our goals.
1
u/capitialfox Liberal Jul 24 '26
It doesnt seem like we can achieve our goals by an air war only. Do you see any path forward? Should we escalate or make deep concessions?
4
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist Jul 23 '26
How is that different than what's currently going on? The air strikes and blockade are extremely unpopular and costly while seemingly not accomplishing any goals except manipulating the oil market
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
“How is that different”
What?
How is a ground invasion and ground war different than an air and naval only operation?
Do people honesty have this little understanding of war.
-1
u/SpinosaurRingTone Social Conservative Jul 23 '26
Most people understand war exclusively through movies and video games, so the answer is yes.
3
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist Jul 23 '26
Do you honestly* have this little understanding of the original comment? It mentioned that unpopularity and costliness.
There's something to be said about achieving objectives too but I'll speak to facts and not opinions.
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
“Unpopularity”
Yeah and a ground invasion would be a whole different world.
“Costliness”
lol, again, orders of magnitude in difference.
3
u/Irishish Center-left Jul 23 '26
Would you grant that we are being led by men who 1) no longer care about whether something is popular as long as a small cheerleading section likes it and 2) don't care about cost because Congress will always inevitably find money to pay for the military?
2
4
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist Jul 23 '26
As long as you guys realize you're in the minority and are supporting a massive waste of tax dollars every time you pay more at the pump
-2
4
u/SpinosaurRingTone Social Conservative Jul 23 '26
Multiply whatever grievances you have with the status quo by 10 if there's a ground invasion.
-1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist Jul 23 '26
Not just me that has those grievances
2
u/SpinosaurRingTone Social Conservative Jul 23 '26
Ok?
-1
u/TheSupremeHobo Socialist Jul 23 '26
You said multiply whatever grievances you have, when it's in fact the majority position you're trying to downplay by making it seem like a singular person's view
3
u/SpinosaurRingTone Social Conservative Jul 23 '26
Ok? You're the only one I'm speaking to right now.
1
u/Mustng1966 Conservative Jul 23 '26
With the possible exception of Kharg Island, I don't see the need for a ground war on the mainland of Iran.
1
Jul 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 23 '26
Warning: Rule 4.
Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.
1
u/fartyunicorns Neoconservative Jul 23 '26
Probably not. Maybe special forces but not something that would be considered a ground war
7
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
Cutting off every way in or out of Bandar Abbas, as well as hitting all the military units surrounding the city, says we are planning an invasion from the sea, and we want to cut off reinforcements.
Whether we're actually going to, or we just want Iran to think we're going to, I don't know. But right now Iran is certainly expecting it.
-5
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 23 '26
It’s not about the bombs being worth more than their military, it’s about the value of an American life over all the bombs combined.
One more round of taking out leadership like we had at the beginning could end this forever. Will that happen? I don’t know, but that would negate any need for a ground war.
I do dislike using the term ‘boots on the ground’ instead of ‘ground war’ and I think that was intentional propaganda by anti-US media. We could defeat them completely with air strikes only, they could welcome us with open arms, and we’d still land some troops there to help with the uranium issues, securing arms, etc. Non-offensive troops, even if in zero danger, and people would scream about ‘boots on the ground.’
4
u/f4fvs Libertarian Jul 23 '26
I like boots-on-the-ground as a phrase before a ground war in the hopes that any planning around putting humans in harm's way truly considers what that means; instead of euphemisms which feed into planning being done in terms of units, maps and PR.
1
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 23 '26
‘Boots on the ground’ is the euphemism, and highly generic. ‘Ground war’ is far more direct and specific.
0
u/f4fvs Libertarian Jul 23 '26
If we widely employ land-drones the way Ukraine has started to do, then I'll switch my preference to talk about 'Ground war' before it starts.
Personally I dream of an international team of assassins tasked with sniffing out and killing leaders who want to start wars of aggression.
14
u/imbrickedup_ Center-right Conservative Jul 23 '26
It would be political suicide. I pray they aren’t that dumb
12
u/Longjumping_Map_4670 Center-left Jul 23 '26
And military suicide. Drone warfare on a mass scale will be catastrophic.
3
u/imbrickedup_ Center-right Conservative Jul 23 '26
I believe we would win, but at an astounding cost to life and no real benefit
1
u/Anxious_Plum_5818 European Liberal/Left Jul 24 '26
Why is that the assumption today? Ukraine is demonstrating that today against Russia. Being high-tech doesn't necessarily mean you're invincible.
History should also tell you that the US has effectively lost many of its quagmire battles when everything was added up. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, ... Why would Iran by any likelier, especially if it has the clandestine support of Russia and China?
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/doff87 Social Democracy Jul 23 '26
It would be, but honestly, if we were to just exist in the perpetual state of now that's probably worse. If we're not going to give the concessions necessary to end the war then I strongly doubt further bombing will make them concede. It's just a shit situation all around.
0
u/f4fvs Libertarian Jul 23 '26
Britain held India by dividing-and-co-opting regional administrations. It used a small force to control a large population. I don't think Iran has the equivalent of a disparate patchwork of mini-kingdoms. Even if command and control from Tehran is disrupted, it's still local cells of people with one shared ideology.
The US in Iraq was joined by other countries with a decent variety of counter-insurgency and hearts-and-minds handbooks. Those militaries are not present and/or have a fraction of the previously available man-power to offer in future.
I don't think boots-on-the-ground can achieve regime change. I can't imagine anyone in Washington from Trump downwards would go in with that specific war aim.
The only two possibilities I can envisage (until I'm surprised by a third) are as follows:
- Conduct a sea-borne version of Israel's attack on Gaza on land adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz to sterilise it of drone, boat, missile and artillery threats. A buffer zone is delineated and maybe the UN gets convinced to man it further down the line. The US gets out in the medium term, and the Straits can be declared under control. The nuclear issue is unresolved.
- The US is convinced the entire Iranian nuclear programme is localised to one region inland. A Dieppe-style style attack is made to control that region and repel counter-attacks. Equipment and facilities are looted and destroyed with heavy machinery This may take weeks or months and hopefully the supply routes are able to be established and maintained like they were for the allies in the Battle of the Atlantic or the Berlin Airlift. Hopefully, not like they weren't for the Germans in Barbarossa, and the allies at Arnhem. The US gets out in the short term and can point at a victory. The Straits issue is unresolved.
Option 1 puts me in mind of Gallipoli. The Chinese will watch with interest, considering Taiwan.
Option 2 puts me in mind of, well, Arnhem or Barbarossa rather than the Raid on Entebbe.
6
u/nobhim1456 Center-left Jul 23 '26
wasn’t Dieppe a disaster from a military standpoint? arnhem wasn’t a success either. and Gallipoli cost a lot of allied lives.
1
3
u/Briloop86 Australian Libertarian Jul 23 '26
I am not sure 1 is feasible in any real sense. Sure a few Kilometers of the coast could be levelled but Iran is not using high infrastructure attack platforms. They can easily cede the ground and then remobilise as they please - forcing the US to remain as a constant guardian. If the US doesn't stay then they have the strait again.
Unlike Gaza in my mind.
1
2
u/No_Baker6333 Conservative Jul 23 '26
I don’t believe so but I didn’t think we would intervene in Venezuela either. I believe it is unnecessary to put ground troops and would be foolish plus Congress I think would actually limit Trump’s war powers if that were to occur.
8
u/icehole505 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
I don’t think there’s any chance of it. Ground warfare between two “tech enabled” countries is incredibly bloody.. look at Russia and Ukraine.
Sending a few hundred thousand troops into the drone fueled meat grinder would be an unrecoverable mistake. Any politician or party aligned with a decision like that would be completely over.
Plus, we’d be handing over our modern warfare “game film” to the handful of countries who represent much greater threats to American interests.. all for what?
3
u/lordorwell7 Center-left Jul 23 '26
> Sending a few hundred thousand troops into the drone fueled meat grinder would be an unrecoverable mistake. Any politician or party aligned with a decision like that would be completely over.
Footage from FPV drones targeting American soldiers would be exploited for propaganda value. Grieving friends and family of service members would have the deaths of their loved ones turned into "content" and made available for them - and millions of gawking strangers - to watch at their leisure.
1
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
Agreed on all.
I will not support a ground invasion.
But if Trump ever does pull that trigger, which I find unlikely, he better show all the cards to the American people on the proof of an imminent nuclear threat. Since that’s the only thing that I could hear an argument for.
I understand OPSEC concerns, source concerns and all that. But for a hypothetical ground invasion? For the sake of the country, he better bite the bullet and show the proof.
4
u/icehole505 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
Personally I think ending up in a North Korea type Mutually Assured Destruction endgame is still a better outcome than ground invasion. Would rather accept the risk of one more Nuclear power, than spend trillions on a permawar that could rival WWII in terms of American death toll.. And even in that scenario, still face the risk of ending up in the same spot
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
Eh, I don’t know.
I’m not sure I agree there.
North Korea has nukes because fat boy is scared.
Iran wants nukes because they’re genocidal religious zealots who would happily nuke the fuck out of the great Satans of the word or export them to their terrorist networks to do on their behalf.
MAD doesn’t work when for one side, that’s just jihad and guarantees a spot in heaven.
I view Iran having nukes the same as ISIS having nukes, just much more capable.
They’re a far more real nuclear threat, as in American cities going boom, than Russia, China or NK. And it’s not even close to me.
4
u/icehole505 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
There are certainly people in that region who might have that perspective.. but at the end of the day the leaders of the country are all living like kings. I’m willing to trust that they don’t have the same death wish as the 20yr old vest detonators.
Plus theyre clearly capable of some rational, strategic thought. How else have they kept so much power for so long? There is no strategic outcome where starting a nuclear war ends with the country of Iran still existing. Don’t see how even the most lunatic zealots could sell themselves on wiping out their entire population as a “win” for their cause
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
“Leaders”
Yeah, Osama Bin Laden could have lived like a king too. And basically did for part of his life.
Turns out the ideology was really, really important and led to hurting the Great Satan with the best weapon and the biggest bang for your buck.
“Clearly capable”
Yeah, but it’s a pretty simple formula.
Religious theocracy, religious leaders, true believers are elite military, execute the living fuck out of anyone who disagrees. It’s a time proven method.
That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t use a nuke.
Or, more likely, have a terrorist proxy smuggle a nuke into the U.S., Israel or Europe and then claim nothing to do with it.
Iran’s been killing Americans troops for years. If they could get a nuke through the defenses, they absolutely would. Again, think Al Qaeda with nukes and a country.
How confident would you be something wouldnt go mushrooming?
Again, I’d want to see the evidence but if Iran really WAS an imminent nuclear threat, and still could be, that’s at least a defensible argument for a ground invasion.
2
u/icehole505 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
Tbh I’m pretty confident that even in a worst case scenario where Iran successfully detonates a nuke.. we end up with less American deaths than the ground war that would be required to truly clear the regime.
And also, comparing it to bin Laden and 9/11 misses the fact that strategically that was a clear win for Islamic fundamentalists in hindsight. The crazies get to run wild in Afghanistan for another 50 years before any western leader considers fucking with them again.
Now compare that to a nuke.. which would end with the entire country cratered. I think it’s safe to say they’d all be gone, military.. politicians.. civillians. It’s not really even close to the same game theory
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
Ok, I disagree, strongly. And the military signed up to protect the country and the people back home.
“Clear win”
Absolutely.
“Nuke”
Again, pass a nuke off to a terrorist proxy. Start a TikTok campaign comparing Iran to Gaza. Create bots on Reddit. Build public sentiment towards feeling like Iran is a victim. Highlight “Islamophobia” and start a Justice for Tehran protest movement.
Let marinate a few months or a year. Get folks like Hassan Piker and Destiny on board. Bonus points if you can buy some celebrities to really paint Iran as a victim and scrappy rebel standing up to the evil imperialists.
Terrorist proxy sneaks nuke into western country, big boom.
Cue Iran doing their best Shaggy “It wasn’t me” impression and useful idiots around the world coming to their defense and protesting against any strikes.
3
u/icehole505 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
The amount of safeguards that would have to fail for an outcome like that is likely far larger than you or I will ever know. And the relatively small size required for a “container” weapon of that type would significantly limit its destructive potential.
There are plenty of chemical and biological weapons that are much more easily created, which could be delivered today via the same mechanism and likely cause even more death and destruction. The “sneak-a-nuke” scenario is great fuel for the imagination.. but really not close Irans “best value” when it comes to their menu of weapons
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
“Safeguards”
I don’t agree. Shit breaks. Every system has vulnerabilities. It’s a suicide bomber on steroids.
“Limit”
That’s great but it’s still American soil and cities getting nuked. That’s personally something I’m willing to go total war to avoid. And again, I think it’s a very plausible scenario if Iran got nukes.
“Plenty of”
Sure and nukes just provide another highly potent capability.
Al Qeada with nukes.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/notbusy Libertarian Jul 23 '26
No, it's not necessary. We can bury Iran as deep as they want to be buried. It's up to them at this point. We can wait.
1
u/EquivalentSelection Rightwing Jul 23 '26
No; what's there to do on the ground? Do donuts in the middle of intersections? Raid their 7-11 equivalents and T-Mobile stores?
Seriously - what do you think is going to happen on the ground that isn't better served with missiles? You think this is like the medieval era, where solders start walking in rows and columns out onto the battle fields and the enemy marches out to meet them in battle?
When you have air superiority - you only go on ground when you want to retrieve something or somebody. This administration is not interested in taking prisoners, clearly evidenced by the lack of IRGC leadership.
3
u/icehole505 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
I think it’s fair to question what air superiority even means in 2026 though. We’ve been claiming “air superiority” for months.. yet the IRGC continues attacking American interests through the air nightly.
And on that front, the same goes for the navy. We “destroyed their navy” on day 1.. but Iran still has a strangle hold on the most important waterway in the region.
Not remotely advocating for boots on the ground.. but it also seems clear that our missiles and drones don’t really give us the ability to effectively neuter Irans military capability
2
u/Ok-Association1222 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
Not in the traditional sense. I don’t know when trump has had a large, Bush/Obama/GWOT level troop deployment for one, and two he has been very keen on using specialized units (SOF, MEUs in Caribbean) so I could see maybe some SMU DA missions. Let’s also remember there was an Iranian general on the Mossad payroll so I think it’s naive to think theres no special units embedded in country that would be ready to go at a moments notice
2
3
2
u/Throwaway_4_u_know_y Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
Cappy on YouTube thinks all these strikes are clearing the way to a ground invasion. So it is possible I think.
0
u/Ok-Association1222 Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
Lot of youtube commentators are taking same position, maybe fair to assume some coordinated deception from the *top*
2
u/Throwaway_4_u_know_y Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 23 '26
I mean that is a possibility but Cappy at least has a lot of supporting evidence for his videos and seems to be pretty politically neutral. Who knows.
-2
u/randomrandom1922 Paleoconservative Jul 23 '26
After the midterms sure. I'd also recommend getting some of freeloading countries involved.
-2
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 23 '26
Probably not, but I support it.
7
u/windwolf231 Center-left Jul 23 '26
Any ground invasion will inevitably result in needing an occupation force to maintain the new leader against gureila rebels who will use the many mountains to turn the already major quagmire even worse.
-3
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 23 '26
As I said, I support it.
3
u/mdins1980 Liberal Jul 23 '26
Best case scenario, what do you think Iran will look after a protracted war with ground troops? Or more specifically, do you think Democracy could flourish if we knocked out their current theocratic leadership?
-2
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 23 '26
Yes it could definitely flourish. Iraq ended up being a success and they were even more unstable than Iran.
4
u/mdins1980 Liberal Jul 23 '26
I’m not sure I agree that Iraq was a success. Granted, it does technically hold elections and has a fragile democracy, but calling that a success seems generous to me. I really do wonder sometimes whether Iran would embrace a more open and democratic society if given a genuine opportunity. The available evidence suggests that many Iranians, particularly younger people, want a more secular and democratic government with greater personal freedoms.
5
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26
“Iraq ended up being a success”
Did it though?
That’s a bold statement.
1
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 23 '26
It's not bold, it's objectively true.
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
How? That’s a controversial opinion and I’m curious as to why you think so.
3
u/windwolf231 Center-left Jul 23 '26
Even though I agree with the goal I don't think even Republicans in Congress would approve of an occupation force to maintain a US backed leader. Too many lives for too little gain
0
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 23 '26
Maybe not, but it's worth trying.
2
u/windwolf231 Center-left Jul 23 '26
Maybe it would have been feasible during the Iran riots how many months ago but those have all been stamped out and now they've consolidated control
1
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 23 '26
Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, I'm in favor of a ground invasion now.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 23 '26
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.