Over the next few weeks, keep your eyes on the Middle East

nmerritt11 · Mar 2, 2026

For @GDead_Tiger

History:
Obama, Bill Clinton & Joe Biden ordered airstrikes - without explicit congressional approval - killing civilians, including Americans

As Democrat politicians and paid protester fume over President Trump's strikes in Iran - saying they were illegal and he needed constitutional authority, it may be a good time to take a look back at drone strikes that killed civilians and were ordered by Obama, Clinton and Biden.

🔷️Obama:

Obama's aggressive expansion of U.S. airstrikes and drone campaigns from 2009 to 2017 resulted in an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 total deaths from airstrikes – a including ~3,000–6,000 civilians and 4,000 from Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia

During Obama’s presidency the United States conducted at least 27,313 airstrikes and drone strikes across seven countries

Afghanistan:
Obama escalated troop levels in 2009 in the country and ordered airstrikes, including drone strikes, without Congressional approval.
#Obama

Iraq:
Obama ordered airstrikes starting against ISIS, bypassing Congressional authorization.

Syria:
Airstrikes started in September 2014 against ISIS. Obama initially sought Congressional approval in 2013 for strikes against Assad but stopped asking for approval after he was denied and decided to strike without authorization.

Libya:
In March 2011, Obama authorized airstrikes leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow. No Congressional approval was sought, Obama later called this a mistake, acknowledging that he didn't have legal grounding to take action

Yemen:
Drone strikes started in 2009 against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. These were not authorized by a Congressional vote, and the strikes resulted in the k*lling of civilians

Somalia:
Airstrikes and drone strikes against al-Shabaab started in 2009. Obama did not get congressional approval
#Somalia

Pakistan:
Drone strikes in Waziristan started days after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, escalating to 128 strikes in 2010. No Congressional authorization was given
#Pakistan

Philippines:
The U.S. conducted airstrikes and drone strikes against ISIS affiliates in 2017, No specific Congressional approval was sought or given.

Mali:
In 2013, Obama conducted a drone strike against al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) target, following a French-led intervention. This did not have congressional approval.

Niger:
U.S. airstrikes started in 2016 against AQIM and ISIS affiliates with no Congressional authorization.

🔷️Bill Clinton
Clinton's 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia bypassed congressional approval.

The 78-day bombing blitz, launched without a war declaration or War Powers Resolution compliance, inflicted heavy civilian losses amid disputed intelligence.

The House rejected a war resolution, yet Clinton pressed on, citing executive prerogative – a move the ACLU slammed as unconstitutional.

During Clinton's eight-year tenure (1993–2001) more than 41,000 U.S.-participating airstrikes and cruise missile launches were conducted without new congressional authorization killing thousands of civilians.

🔷️Joe Biden

Biden's 1,200 airstrikes and drone strikes without new congressional approvals claimed ~3,000–5,000 total lives, including 200–400 civilians.

BigPapaWhit · Mar 2, 2026

nmerritt11 said:
For @GDead_Tiger

History:
Obama, Bill Clinton & Joe Biden ordered airstrikes - without explicit congressional approval - killing civilians, including Americans

As Democrat politicians and paid protester fume over President Trump's strikes in Iran - saying they were illegal and he needed constitutional authority, it may be a good time to take a look back at drone strikes that killed civilians and were ordered by Obama, Clinton and Biden.

🔷️Obama:

Obama's aggressive expansion of U.S. airstrikes and drone campaigns from 2009 to 2017 resulted in an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 total deaths from airstrikes – a including ~3,000–6,000 civilians and 4,000 from Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia

During Obama’s presidency the United States conducted at least 27,313 airstrikes and drone strikes across seven countries

Afghanistan:
Obama escalated troop levels in 2009 in the country and ordered airstrikes, including drone strikes, without Congressional approval.
#Obama

Iraq:
Obama ordered airstrikes starting against ISIS, bypassing Congressional authorization.

Syria:
Airstrikes started in September 2014 against ISIS. Obama initially sought Congressional approval in 2013 for strikes against Assad but stopped asking for approval after he was denied and decided to strike without authorization.

Libya:
In March 2011, Obama authorized airstrikes leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow. No Congressional approval was sought, Obama later called this a mistake, acknowledging that he didn't have legal grounding to take action

Yemen:
Drone strikes started in 2009 against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. These were not authorized by a Congressional vote, and the strikes resulted in the k*lling of civilians

Somalia:
Airstrikes and drone strikes against al-Shabaab started in 2009. Obama did not get congressional approval
#Somalia
Pakistan:
Drone strikes in Waziristan started days after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, escalating to 128 strikes in 2010. No Congressional authorization was given
#Pakistan
Philippines:
The U.S. conducted airstrikes and drone strikes against ISIS affiliates in 2017, No specific Congressional approval was sought or given.

Mali:
In 2013, Obama conducted a drone strike against al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) target, following a French-led intervention. This did not have congressional approval.

Niger:
U.S. airstrikes started in 2016 against AQIM and ISIS affiliates with no Congressional authorization.

🔷️Bill Clinton
Clinton's 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia bypassed congressional approval.

The 78-day bombing blitz, launched without a war declaration or War Powers Resolution compliance, inflicted heavy civilian losses amid disputed intelligence.

The House rejected a war resolution, yet Clinton pressed on, citing executive prerogative – a move the ACLU slammed as unconstitutional.

During Clinton's eight-year tenure (1993–2001) more than 41,000 U.S.-participating airstrikes and cruise missile launches were conducted without new congressional authorization killing thousands of civilians.

🔷️Joe Biden
Biden's 1,200 airstrikes and drone strikes without new congressional approvals claimed ~3,000–5,000 total lives, including 200–400 civilians.

Perhaps I’ve misread the audience, but I think the preponderance of concern is not party but branch, specifically unchecked executive power.

I myself am uncertain perhaps even uncomfortable when the US acts without consensus or consent. Even I tend to favor a strong executive branch but don’t want that power unchecked.

to your point, current actions are not unprecedented. However, that doesn’t mean it sits any easier. History has shown both sides of the aisle have gotten it wrong. This one is yet to be determined.

i would also venture we all agree that regime change is for the best. People just may differ on the best way to bring it about.

nmerritt11 · Mar 2, 2026

BigPapaWhit said:
Perhaps I’ve misread the audience, but I think the preponderance of concern is not party but branch, specifically unchecked executive power.

I myself am uncertain perhaps even uncomfortable when the US acts without consensus or consent. Even I tend to favor a strong executive branch but don’t want that power unchecked.

to your point, current actions are not unprecedented. However, that doesn’t mean it sits any easier. History has shown both sides of the aisle have gotten it wrong. This one is yet to be determined.

i would also venture we all agree that regime change is for the best. People just may differ on the best way to bring it about.

I’ve clearly stated both sides have engaged without congressional approval. That’s my main point here

BigPapaWhit · Mar 2, 2026

nmerritt11 said:
I’ve clearly stated both sides have engaged without congressional approval. That’s my main point here

The question is should either be doing it w/o congressional approval. That I cannot answer. I am not an expert in constitutional law.

Cavitybacks · Mar 2, 2026

GDead_Tiger said:
Interesting

I don't have time to keep up with anything political, so I'm probably way off base with this statement... JD Vance doesn't come across as the sharpest guy nor a guy who I would want making these decisions. I know he is a veteran, but I just don't really trust his opinion for some reason.

Again, I don't keep up, so maybe I'm off base. I enjoy this thread even though I have very little to add.

rodneyp4 · Mar 2, 2026

nmerritt11 said:
For @GDead_Tiger

History:
Obama, Bill Clinton & Joe Biden ordered airstrikes - without explicit congressional approval - killing civilians, including Americans

As Democrat politicians and paid protester fume over President Trump's strikes in Iran - saying they were illegal and he needed constitutional authority, it may be a good time to take a look back at drone strikes that killed civilians and were ordered by Obama, Clinton and Biden.

🔷️Obama:

Obama's aggressive expansion of U.S. airstrikes and drone campaigns from 2009 to 2017 resulted in an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 total deaths from airstrikes – a including ~3,000–6,000 civilians and 4,000 from Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia

During Obama’s presidency the United States conducted at least 27,313 airstrikes and drone strikes across seven countries

Afghanistan:
Obama escalated troop levels in 2009 in the country and ordered airstrikes, including drone strikes, without Congressional approval.
#Obama

Iraq:
Obama ordered airstrikes starting against ISIS, bypassing Congressional authorization.

Syria:
Airstrikes started in September 2014 against ISIS. Obama initially sought Congressional approval in 2013 for strikes against Assad but stopped asking for approval after he was denied and decided to strike without authorization.

Libya:
In March 2011, Obama authorized airstrikes leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow. No Congressional approval was sought, Obama later called this a mistake, acknowledging that he didn't have legal grounding to take action

Yemen:
Drone strikes started in 2009 against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. These were not authorized by a Congressional vote, and the strikes resulted in the k*lling of civilians

Somalia:
Airstrikes and drone strikes against al-Shabaab started in 2009. Obama did not get congressional approval
#Somalia
Pakistan:
Drone strikes in Waziristan started days after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, escalating to 128 strikes in 2010. No Congressional authorization was given
#Pakistan
Philippines:
The U.S. conducted airstrikes and drone strikes against ISIS affiliates in 2017, No specific Congressional approval was sought or given.

Mali:
In 2013, Obama conducted a drone strike against al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) target, following a French-led intervention. This did not have congressional approval.

Niger:
U.S. airstrikes started in 2016 against AQIM and ISIS affiliates with no Congressional authorization.

🔷️Bill Clinton
Clinton's 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia bypassed congressional approval.

The 78-day bombing blitz, launched without a war declaration or War Powers Resolution compliance, inflicted heavy civilian losses amid disputed intelligence.

The House rejected a war resolution, yet Clinton pressed on, citing executive prerogative – a move the ACLU slammed as unconstitutional.

During Clinton's eight-year tenure (1993–2001) more than 41,000 U.S.-participating airstrikes and cruise missile launches were conducted without new congressional authorization killing thousands of civilians.

🔷️Joe Biden
Biden's 1,200 airstrikes and drone strikes without new congressional approvals claimed ~3,000–5,000 total lives, including 200–400 civilians.

I too can copy and paste from ChatGPT

tboonpickens · Mar 2, 2026

Cavitybacks said:
I don't have time to keep up with anything political, so I'm probably way off base with this statement... JD Vance doesn't come across as the sharpest guy nor a guy who I would want making these decisions. I know he is a veteran, but I just don't really trust his opinion for some reason.

Again, I don't keep up, so maybe I'm off base. I enjoy this thread even though I have very little to add.

you are very much on base here.

this administration struggles to float any kind of coherent messaging, and JD is definitely not a calming influence himself. i would challenge anyone to watching this clip and come away feeling confident about our missives.

tboonpickens · Mar 2, 2026

Cavitybacks said:
I don't have time to keep up with anything political, so I'm probably way off base with this statement... JD Vance doesn't come across as the sharpest guy nor a guy who I would want making these decisions. I know he is a veteran, but I just don't really trust his opinion for some reason.

Again, I don't keep up, so maybe I'm off base. I enjoy this thread even though I have very little to add.

wanted to add that there is a school of thought that there are members of the Trump admin who understand how unpopular this new war is, and they're already floating the supremely unpopular JD as an initial fall guy.

P. Marlowe · Mar 3, 2026

If we’re going to make this thread the partisan musings of a couple of abject dipshits, just move it to the politics board and let it die.

MrCharleston · Mar 3, 2026

Informative interactive map of strikes noted by the Institute of the Study of War…

MAP LINK

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

nmerritt11 said:
For @GDead_Tiger

History:
Obama, Bill Clinton & Joe Biden ordered airstrikes - without explicit congressional approval - killing civilians, including Americans

As Democrat politicians and paid protester fume over President Trump's strikes in Iran - saying they were illegal and he needed constitutional authority, it may be a good time to take a look back at drone strikes that killed civilians and were ordered by Obama, Clinton and Biden.

🔷️Obama:

Obama's aggressive expansion of U.S. airstrikes and drone campaigns from 2009 to 2017 resulted in an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 total deaths from airstrikes – a including ~3,000–6,000 civilians and 4,000 from Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia

During Obama’s presidency the United States conducted at least 27,313 airstrikes and drone strikes across seven countries

Afghanistan:
Obama escalated troop levels in 2009 in the country and ordered airstrikes, including drone strikes, without Congressional approval.
#Obama

Iraq:
Obama ordered airstrikes starting against ISIS, bypassing Congressional authorization.

Syria:
Airstrikes started in September 2014 against ISIS. Obama initially sought Congressional approval in 2013 for strikes against Assad but stopped asking for approval after he was denied and decided to strike without authorization.

Libya:
In March 2011, Obama authorized airstrikes leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow. No Congressional approval was sought, Obama later called this a mistake, acknowledging that he didn't have legal grounding to take action

Yemen:
Drone strikes started in 2009 against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. These were not authorized by a Congressional vote, and the strikes resulted in the k*lling of civilians

Somalia:
Airstrikes and drone strikes against al-Shabaab started in 2009. Obama did not get congressional approval
#Somalia
Pakistan:
Drone strikes in Waziristan started days after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, escalating to 128 strikes in 2010. No Congressional authorization was given
#Pakistan
Philippines:
The U.S. conducted airstrikes and drone strikes against ISIS affiliates in 2017, No specific Congressional approval was sought or given.

Mali:
In 2013, Obama conducted a drone strike against al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) target, following a French-led intervention. This did not have congressional approval.

Niger:
U.S. airstrikes started in 2016 against AQIM and ISIS affiliates with no Congressional authorization.

🔷️Bill Clinton
Clinton's 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia bypassed congressional approval.

The 78-day bombing blitz, launched without a war declaration or War Powers Resolution compliance, inflicted heavy civilian losses amid disputed intelligence.

The House rejected a war resolution, yet Clinton pressed on, citing executive prerogative – a move the ACLU slammed as unconstitutional.

During Clinton's eight-year tenure (1993–2001) more than 41,000 U.S.-participating airstrikes and cruise missile launches were conducted without new congressional authorization killing thousands of civilians.

🔷️Joe Biden
Biden's 1,200 airstrikes and drone strikes without new congressional approvals claimed ~3,000–5,000 total lives, including 200–400 civilians.

What’s the source for this, it reads like AI.

Anyway, and prefacing this by saying I opposed Obama’s drone war once I started getting involved in politics in 2015 (I was conservative back then), most of Obama’s drone strikes fell under the 2001 AUMF and continued the pattern from the Bush administration. Now, was the AUMF cartoonishly expanded beyond its original purpose and on shaky legal ground? Should it be abolished? Yes. I already posted the criticism of the Libya example, though that had bipartisan congressional support at first and was part of a wider NATO mission.

Clinton’s bombing in Yugoslavia was part of a wider UN/NATO effort and was done explicitly to help end the genocide being carried out by the Serbs on the Bosniaks. Other of his bombings were in direct response to attacks on US embassies and a planned assassination of HW. I was a child then so I don’t remember any of it.

Biden’s drone strikes also fell under the AUMF broadly (which I oppose), targeting Al Qaeda aligned militants in the Middle East.

Trump massively expanded the drone war during his first term. In his second term, he launched more drone strikes in the first five months of his second term than Biden did in 4 years. And here’s the thing, Iran strikes are still different. They are not covered by the AUMF. There was no direct threat to the US itself or its forces, the administration has said as much. I have actual principles, so I can say something was bad regardless of which party did it. The anti air strike stuff is one of my oldest political beliefs and has stayed with me from being a conservative to a social democrat

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

BigPapaWhit said:
Perhaps I’ve misread the audience, but I think the preponderance of concern is not party but branch, specifically unchecked executive power.

I myself am uncertain perhaps even uncomfortable when the US acts without consensus or consent. Even I tend to favor a strong executive branch but don’t want that power unchecked.

to your point, current actions are not unprecedented. However, that doesn’t mean it sits any easier. History has shown both sides of the aisle have gotten it wrong. This one is yet to be determined.

i would also venture we all agree that regime change is for the best. People just may differ on the best way to bring it about.

You did not get it wrong. Just because the other team did it doesn’t make it right for another to do it. There is also the AUMF issue. I think our Middle East policy and CENTCOM have been a hammer in search of a nail for far too long

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

Cavitybacks said:
I don't have time to keep up with anything political, so I'm probably way off base with this statement... JD Vance doesn't come across as the sharpest guy nor a guy who I would want making these decisions. I know he is a veteran, but I just don't really trust his opinion for some reason.

Again, I don't keep up, so maybe I'm off base. I enjoy this thread even though I have very little to add.

Yeah I think there is a lot of backbiting and jockeying for position, especially among Rubio and Vance, which I find interesting

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

P. Marlowe said:
If we’re going to make this thread the partisan musings of a couple of abject dipshits, just move it to the politics board and let it die.

Tiger2526 · Mar 3, 2026

GDead_Tiger said:
Yeah I think there is a lot of backbiting and jockeying for position, especially among Rubio and Vance, which I find interesting

STFU and stop making this about politics. You are the problem.

SlipDrip · Mar 3, 2026

GDead_Tiger said:
The Saudis are complaining that we are protecting the Israelis way more than them, lol get rekt

How do you decide on which foreign country to worship?

leetp · Mar 3, 2026

tboonpickens said:
Interesting comments from an expert who says (apart from dropping nukes obv) that air strikes have never resulted in actual regime change and we’re basically in a kind of escalation trap now.

This is so grossly overstated and trite. It has been parroted many times by so-called expert talking heads and then repeated by an echo chamber because it feels real.

The reason we generally don't see it happen is because we've never really try it. We and others seem to suffer from perpetual mission creep and always wind up taking it at least one step further.

Brucepg2000 · Mar 3, 2026

PawsFan said:
If Russia can't romp through Ukraine, they ain't romping through Europe. Their military is crap.

It’s asinine to think that if they really wanted to deal with all of the pushback they couldn’t just roll through Ukraine. They have been using a knife in situations where they usually use a hammer. They could have and still can carpet bomb that entire country. I've been poking this Bear in the eye for the past 30years.

leetp · Mar 3, 2026

tboonpickens said:
more good analysis from a 25-year SME

Now seek out counter points of from equally "seasoned experts". You will no doubt find it. Whatever you want your opinion to be, X will serve it up for you.

Brucepg2000 · Mar 3, 2026

ChicagoTiger85 said:
Are we not acknowledging that Iran is already and has always been one of the biggest state sponsors of terror, many times against the US, ever since their revolution? They may try to step it up, but it’s not like they’ve been on good terms with us. This is why various people have called for taking on Iran in some way, and have often taken a lot of heat for it.

Having their regime decapitated and their people who’ve coordinated international terrorism tied up may actually decrease these threats.

Agreed. IMO, Part of the the Iraq and Afghan initiative was to isolate Iran.

leetp · Mar 3, 2026

BigPapaWhit said:
Perhaps I’ve misread the audience, but I think the preponderance of concern is not party but branch, specifically unchecked executive power.

I myself am uncertain perhaps even uncomfortable when the US acts without consensus or consent. Even I tend to favor a strong executive branch but don’t want that power unchecked.

to your point, current actions are not unprecedented. However, that doesn’t mean it sits any easier. History has shown both sides of the aisle have gotten it wrong. This one is yet to be determined.

i would also venture we all agree that regime change is for the best. People just may differ on the best way to bring it about.

I share your concern. Federal government abuses abound and I would love to know how to get that tiger back into its cage.

The only thing I take exception with is acting without consensus. Democracies must have consensus to act, not Republics. The need for consensus is why democracies fail. Republics must only have eventual consensus.... That is to say, consensus at some point and after the action. We should never take a poll or have a referendum on when a government should take action. Leadership is doing what must be done, even if it is wildly unpopular. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a demonstration of leadership nor that it is what must be done.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is plenty of room to tear this decision to strike Iran apart without falling to the trap of whether or not it's popular or has consensus. Some of the worst and most immoral behavior in mankind's history had popular support.

Brucepg2000 · Mar 3, 2026

HunterPKP said:
Here's the rub and why the investigation of this matters a ton. The radar operators for those big Raytheon radars know the difference between a F15 and a drone or a cruise missile. Completely different signatures. I know this because my brother operated PAT systems for many years and was Brigade Commander of the 69th ADA. 1 is accidental. A cluster of 3 all at once is a bit suspect and should invoke very serious investigation.

There is alot of spoofing going on.....

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

Tiger2526 said:
STFU and stop making this about politics. You are the problem.

I’m describing the horse race, not my opinion on it.

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

SlipDrip said:
How do you decide on which foreign country to worship?

What do you mean

harristeeter · Mar 3, 2026

leetp said:
Now seek out counter points of from equally "seasoned experts". You will no doubt find it. Whatever you want your opinion to be, X will serve it up for you.

Algorithms are a beautiful and terrible thing at the same time.

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

leetp said:
This is so grossly overstated and trite. It has been parroted many times by so-called expert talking heads and then repeated by an echo chamber because it feels real.

The reason we generally don't see it happen is because we've never really try it. We and others seem to suffer from perpetual mission creep and always wind up taking it at least one step further.

Yes, we have tried it. That’s what this guys book is about. He wrote *the* book on air power and regime change

P. Marlowe · Mar 3, 2026

leetp said:
Now seek out counter points of from equally "seasoned experts". You will no doubt find it. Whatever you want your opinion to be, X will serve it up for you.

The unwitting self-own of using Pape and then El-Gamal was the real highlight of the @tboonpickens and @GDead_Tiger multipage frotting session. The chef’s kiss, if you will.

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

P. Marlowe said:
The unwitting self-own of using Pape and then El-Gamal was the real highlight of the @tboonpickens and @GDead_Tiger multipage frotting session. The chef’s kiss, if you will.

I know you wanted to join in playboy. Ever heard of the ignore button

P. Marlowe · Mar 3, 2026

GDead_Tiger said:
I know you wanted to join in playboy. Ever heard of the ignore button

Watching you two play ouch ouch you’re on my hair is far too entertaining.

SlipDrip · Mar 3, 2026

GDead_Tiger said:
What do you mean

You mentioned Saudis are upset we are protecting Israel more than them. I asked how do we decide which foreign nation to divert our resources to?

I’d personally love to see both Saudi and Israel learn to deal with their own problems. Especially considering it’s not a fact that Mossad used Epstein to rape children and blackmail Americans.

nmerritt11 · Mar 3, 2026

BigPapaWhit said:
The question is should either be doing it w/o congressional approval. That I cannot answer. I am not an expert in constitutional law.

if it is not a declaration of war, the POTUS does not need congressional approval for military strikes. Again, most Presidents in my lifetime, on both sides, have engaged in military strikes without congress approval so I am not sure what the issue is.

Hell one time they did seek it and a certain politician did not respond and Benghazi happened. Sometimes the President just needs to make a decision. And some people on both sides will b-tch about it because they don't like the person that is the commander in chief.

But again...the Iranian citizens support the efforts for the most part and it will hopefully turn out to be a good thing in the long run but no one knows today how it all finishes. Trump's meeting with Germany today will be interesting. Long planned meeting but I am sure this potential war and current military operation will be on the forefront. Merz, while not admitting full support of this initiative, has also said that their peaceful methods of resolving issues with Iran have been a fail.

“Now is not the moment to lecture our partners and allies — despite all doubts, we share many of their goals without being able to actually achieve them ourselves,” Mr. Merz said.

Based on what I have ready they were not part of the initial strikes. They have not supported nor condemned them. Merz seems to be on the fence on how it went down.

What I don't understand is why Iran is attacking countries that have not been involved. They are bringing more countries to the table with a military that cannot handle what they have in front of them. Going to be interesting to watch.

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

SlipDrip said:
You mentioned Saudis are upset we are protecting Israel more than them. I asked how do we decide which foreign nation to divert our resources to?

I’d personally love to see both Saudi and Israel learn to deal with their own problems. Especially considering it’s not a fact that Mossad used Epstein to rape children and blackmail Americans.

I agree with you on disliking both

leetp · Mar 3, 2026

GDead_Tiger said:
Yes, we have tried it. That’s what this guys book is about. He wrote *the* book on air power and regime change

You have a POV... And maybe you have a lot of them that say the same thing. That doesn't mean they are correct. I believe there are cases where air power alone* can affect regime change in certain narrow circumstances.

*not excluding small contingents of spec operators to paint targets and such

BigPapaWhit · Mar 3, 2026

leetp said:
I share your concern. Federal government abuses abound and I would love to know how to get that tiger back into its cage.

The only thing I take exception with is acting without consensus. Democracies must have consensus to act, not Republics. The need for consensus is why democracies fail. Republics must only have eventual consensus.... That is to say, consensus at some point and after the action. We should never take a poll or have a referendum on when a government should take action. Leadership is doing what must be done, even if it is wildly unpopular. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a demonstration of leadership nor that it is what must be done.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is plenty of room to tear this decision to strike Iran apart without falling to the trap of whether or not it's popular or has consensus. Some of the worst and most immoral behavior in mankind's history had popular support.

Maybe I made my point poorly. Consensus can be of +1. Also to be said there seems to be a lack of consensus of our mission objective. Maybe there is behind closed doors, but messaging has been poor. That point many of us seem to be in agreement.

BigPapaWhit · Mar 3, 2026

nmerritt11 said:
if it is not a declaration of war, the POTUS does not need congressional approval for military strikes. Again, most Presidents in my lifetime, on both sides, have engaged in military strikes without congress approval so I am not sure what the issue is.

Hell one time they did seek it and a certain politician did not respond and Benghazi happened. Sometimes the President just needs to make a decision. And some people on both sides will b-tch about it because they don't like the person that is the commander in chief.

But again...the Iranian citizens support the efforts for the most part and it will hopefully turn out to be a good thing in the long run but no one knows today how it all finishes. Trump's meeting with Germany today will be interesting. Long planned meeting but I am sure this potential war and current military operation will be on the forefront. Merz, while not admitting full support of this initiative, has also said that their peaceful methods of resolving issues with Iran have been a fail.

“Now is not the moment to lecture our partners and allies — despite all doubts, we share many of their goals without being able to actually achieve them ourselves,” Mr. Merz said.

Based on what I have ready they were not part of the initial strikes. They have not supported nor condemned them. Merz seems to be on the fence on how it went down.

What I don't understand is why Iran is attacking countries that have not been involved. They are bringing more countries to the table with a military that cannot handle what they have in front of them. Going to be interesting to watch.

We are not that far apart. I just think it can be a slippery slope. But as you say, sometimes one has to quit sqawking and start walking.

harristeeter · Mar 3, 2026

P. Marlowe said:
Watching you two play ouch ouch you’re on my hair is far too entertaining.

Going on a very small limb that you have younger kids...would say more than one and at least one of them is a girl?

lol

nmerritt11 · Mar 3, 2026

BigPapaWhit said:
We are not that far apart. I just think it can be a slippery slope. But as you say, sometimes one has to quit sqawking and start walking.

the longer it goes the more slippery the slope can get. I just think this is going to be short lived and I think even Iran knows it. They just don't have anything close to the military fire power to continue to engage. The US and Israel are just so superior. Israel might have the best intelligence military. They are messing with the most capable military operations that exist

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

P. Marlowe said:
Watching you two play ouch ouch you’re on my hair is far too entertaining.

Well I have male pattern baldness so not a lot on the hair front for me. This post has gone completely over my head, not sure the point you're trying to make. I think you're trying to insult me by calling me gay, which ok, didn't know we were back in middle school in 2002.

MisterWorst · Mar 3, 2026

nmerritt11 said:
What I don't understand is why Iran is attacking countries that have not been involved. They are bringing more countries to the table with a military that cannot handle what they have in front of them. Going to be interesting to watch.

They hope to make the juice not worth the squeeze for the US and Israel. The predominate geo-political theory holds that states are rational actors which prioritize their own survival. That's not to say that states can't make irrational choices or have flawed rationalizations to begin with, but it's safe to assume that any state is going to act in such a way that leads to their continued existence. It's a giant poker game where everybody is cheating and everybody wants to win.

Iran can't defeat the US and Israel in a heads up fight. The most valuable military targets in the region are going to either be incredibly well defended by air defense, unable to be located in time (if at all) to make an effective strike, or both. The Iranian government also can't afford to do nothing, since this risks displaying weakness to the populace and, more critically, might lead the IRGC to begin questioning why they can't just run the show themselves given they already de facto run large portions of the country and Iran's economy in the first place.

So Iran attacks less defended targets that don't pose as great a risk of escalation so they can appear to be doing something. This has the added benefit of pressuring regional allies of the US/Israel to slow down or stop the air campaign because the threshold for acceptable harm for someone like Qatar or the UAE is going to be significantly less than what the US or Israel have. Iran is gambling that they can get the US to the point as quickly as possible where they have to decide whether or not to escalate to boots on the ground before deciding that invading Iran wouldn't be worth the time, effort, or money. Conceivably it'd take 1-2 months for the US to build up the ground forces in the region to do so, so that's the time table Iran is working against.

Realistically the air campaign isn't likely to actually force regime change in the way that the US or Israel would like; the IRGC and its domestic forces have a monopoly on force within the country. This isn't like Syria where there are already armed groups that the US can guide its bombing campaign to support on the ground operations. It remains to be seen whether the hardliners or moderates fill the power vacuum within the country, but the difference to the average Iranian citizen is going to be whether they get called rioters or protestors before security forces shoot them in the street.

GDead_Tiger · Mar 3, 2026

MisterWorst said:
They hope to make the juice not worth the squeeze for the US and Israel. The predominate geo-political theory holds that states are rational actors which prioritize their own survival. That's not to say that states can't make irrational choices or have flawed rationalizations to begin with, but it's safe to assume that any state is going to act in such a way that leads to their continued existence. It's a giant poker game where everybody is cheating and everybody wants to win.

Iran can't defeat the US and Israel in a heads up fight. The most valuable military targets in the region are going to either be incredibly well defended by air defense, unable to be located in time (if at all) to make an effective strike, or both. The Iranian government also can't afford to do nothing, since this risks displaying weakness to the populace and, more critically, might lead the IRGC to begin questioning why they can't just run the show themselves given they already de facto run large portions of the country and Iran's economy in the first place.

So Iran attacks less defended targets that don't pose as great a risk of escalation so they can appear to be doing something. This has the added benefit of pressuring regional allies of the US/Israel to slow down or stop the air campaign because the threshold for acceptable harm for someone like Qatar or the UAE is going to be significantly less than what the US or Israel have. Iran is gambling that they can get the US to the point as quickly as possible where they have to decide whether or not to escalate to boots on the ground before deciding that invading Iran wouldn't be worth the time, effort, or money. Conceivably it'd take 1-2 months for the US to build up the ground forces in the region to do so, so that's the time table Iran is working against.

Realistically the air campaign isn't likely to actually force regime change in the way that the US or Israel would like; the IRGC and its domestic forces have a monopoly on force within the country. This isn't like Syria where there are already armed groups that the US can guide its bombing campaign to support on the ground operations. It remains to be seen whether the hardliners or moderates fill the power vacuum within the country, but the difference to the average Iranian citizen is going to be whether they get called rioters or protestors before security forces shoot them in the street.

Yes. They’re striking British bases in Cyprus I believe we used those for our planes. They’re striking the gulf states because of the long running rivalry there and to make them squeal to the US for protection and support, and to drive a wedge into this “coalition”. The Gulf states will be annoyed that the US is prioritizing Israel

Over the next few weeks, keep your eyes on the Middle East

Hall of Famer

All-American

Hall of Famer

All-American

Heisman

Senior

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Sophomore

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

Hall of Famer

Heisman

Heisman

All-American

All-American

Heisman

Hall of Famer

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman