Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) |
Author: Umm 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: Condi's take on Iran
Date: 06/05/26 6:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 7
"Iran's conventional forces were damaged, but whatever impact that had is completely overwhelmed by the increase in Iran's ability to project power resulting from the Strait of Hormuz and their ability to attack regional energy infrastructure. They've now demonstrated they can do both, and that the mightiest military the world has ever known lacks the ability to either force the Strait back to normal or to fully protect the other Gulf States from missile and drone attack."

To be fair, the U.S. military definitely has the ability to force the Strait back to normal.

Is there anyone who really doubts that if the U.S. military was given free reign (and a budget to do so) that they could not completely topple the Iranian regime (including the Republican Guard force)?

Of course, that would involve an invasion with a large boots of the ground footprint. I am guessing that within a few months of putting hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the ground that most of the upper levels of the Iranian leadership (both the Mullahs and the IRGC) would be dead or captured. That would come with the political price that the U.S. would then be occupying a huge, broken country with a populace that does not like us, but that is a political problem, not a military problem.

The U.S. military definitely has the ability to do whatever it wants militarily in Iran. The problem is the U.S. population is (rightfully!!!) not willing to pay the political price. The Trump administration is made the same mistake that the Bush administration made (though on a lesser scale since they are not putting boots on the ground), they are confusing military success with political success.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Umm here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (16) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community