Should Trump drop bombs Iran before he leaves office? Many says he wants to do this to make Bidens goal of re-engaging Iran on a diplomatic front impossible.
I say no. The ONLY viable solution to me is diplomatic. We cannot wipe out Irans knowledge at this point. They know how to build nukes, and we cant stop that. They have the capacity to enrich uranium and its spread out far enough, that we simply cannot get them all short of carpet bombing. We are ( imo ) long past the ability to bomb our way out of this, and sanctions simply punish the population, hardening them against us for generations to come.
Based on the current state-of-affairs, as of this morning, NO, Trump should not "drop bombs on Iran". However, if at any time between now and noon on January 20, 2021, Iran commits any acts of aggression against the United States, then, YES, Trump should "drop bombs on Iran".... But, that notwithstanding, should Israel and/or Saudi Arabia want to "drop bombs on Iran", then that is their prerogative....
trump is damaging or destroying everything he can in an effort to make Biden's job all the more difficult. There's still a lot to come. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...on-proceeds-with-rollback-of-bird-protections
Biden will likely have a lot more trouble with the rabidly Left-wing faction in his own Democrat Party than he will with anything caused by Republicans. But, because ol' Joe loudly proclaimed that he'd be "the most 'progressive' president in history", he's already IN BED WITH THESE AMERICA-HATING, LEFTIST CREATURES... now he'll have live with it, or have a hyperliberal 'civil war' right under his own nose! To put it mildly, at this point, a fading Donald Trump looms as the least of Joe Biden's worries....
I would rather he hit NK's sites, but I won't lose sleep either way on Iran. I do think it will be a bit more complicated hitting Iran's facilities than a lot of proponents believe though. Turkey won't let us launch out of their country for such a mission and our planes would have to fly most of Iran to reach those sites with the deep bunker busters. Anything else, would not be effective at anything except beating the hornet's nest with a honey-covered stick.
The Iranian nuclear-development sites are reputedly located so deep underground that nothing but the most powerful nuclear weapons could have any effect on them. Still... look at the situation through the eyes of a nuclear research technician 500 feet deep in the desert -- you are safe, but your family, located in a house on the surface, IS NOT.... Military strategists have thought for years that the most effective way to wreck the war-fighting ability of a country like Iran is to bomb above-ground targets. Wipe out their military army and air bases, navy ports, and all stockpiles of weapons and supplies. Then, if necessary, you take out the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, focusing attention on utilities, water and sewer systems, and methods of distribution and resupply. Think: It's difficult to ruminate on how you're going to fight some glorious war with the United States when you don't even have toilet paper left in the bombed-out warehouses to wipe your butt with! In short, it wouldn't take long to turn Iran into the "10th-century religious utopia" that its governmental 'holy men' dream of -- and we wouldn't have to use one (ONE) nuclear weapon to achieve it....
"Monster"...?! And tell us, Turin, when did some seraphic 'Saint' ever win a war involving human military force? You win a war in the real world by crushing your enemy to the point where he must cease all hostilities against you and unconditionally surrender... period. Earlier, I was describing a scenario through which you quickly and decisively win conflicts with countries like Iran -- when and if they occur.... No such situation exists at this moment... there is no 'clear-and-present-danger' of hostilities about to be launched by Iran upon the United States -- therefore, 'war', per se, by any American president is not justified -- at this point. Satisfied?
There is no political will to do that in the US and there would be no way to justify doing that in Iran and not in North Korea. Even with Iraq and Afghanistan, we at least pretend to rebuild after the destruction. Nonetheless, we would not necessarily have to reach the core of the facility to neutralize it--if we destroyed the entrances and surrounding infrastructure servicing the facility and did damage as deep as we could reach with conventional weapons, it could very well be sufficient to stop the program in its tracts. If you salt the Persian earth, the regime change is not going to be more pro-west nor have fewer nuclear ambitions nor repent of its terrorist ways.
I think this situation is unsolvable, and bombing them wouldn't make it any better. It would make it worse. So, no.
I can certainly agree with you insofar as there is "no political will" in the United States to get into a war with Iran -- even though if it were conducted intelligently, it would be over and done with in less than a month, from start to finish. But, remember that in this country, we don't fight wars "intelligently", and we haven't done so since World War II. And since World War II, after having been dragged through one miserable, mindless foreign adventure after another, in wars that were not (NOT) fought "intelligently", we're sick to death of all of it. These two useless and ENDLESS piles of sh!t we've been mired in with Iraq and Afghanistan were 'the last straw'.... Hint: if you fight a WAR, then FIGHT TO WIN, and get it the hell over with! Reality? The Islamo-Nazis in Tehran know that all they have to do is wait for good ol' Joe to take the Oath of Office over here, and then they can continue their pursuit of the development of thermonuclear hydrogen weapons, undisturbed by the government of the United States.... . "Just sit tight, boys... Ol' Joe takes over at noon on January 20th...."
