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 (84) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84353 
Subject: Re: Vance Failed. No Deal.
Date: 04/12/26 12:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 15
We've largely destroyed their ability to make nuclear weapons. What we don't want is them trying to start it all up again. The negotiations are about the future state of Iran.

We had already destroyed their ability to make nuclear weapons, in the present tense. Remember? We obliterated their nuclear program last year. An obvious illustration of how blowing stuff up can't achieve an objective about the future state of Iran, since that's something that we still need to secure. Through a deal of some kind, apparently. Perhaps we could call that deal some kind of plan of action. Maybe something that's comprehensive?

The objectives never wavered.

Of course they have. The Administration has voiced different objectives:

1. Unconditional surrender of Iran (DJT, Mar 6)
2. Regime change and freedom for the Iranian people (DJT, Feb 28)
3. Elimination of existing ballistic missiles. (Hegseth Mar 2 and later)
4. Elimination of ballistic missile production capabilities, later shifted to degrading or reducing (various times)
5. Elimination of navy (various times)
6. Elimination of air force (various times)
7. Elimination of ability to fund or support terror proxies (various times)
8. Prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon (various times)
9. Open strait of hormuz (later in the war).

Eventually, they settled on four (though not always the same four). Rubio's enumeration of the four were numbers 4, 5, 6 and 8 above. Hegseth's original list was numbers 3, 4, 5 and 8. Your list is different from both of theirs, since you have 3+4, 5, 6, and 7 (surprisingly, not nukes), which is one of the consistent war objectives from the Administration but appears to not be achievable through the war.

We'd rather they knock this stuff off and spend their money productively instead of trying to throttle the region with nuclear weapons.

That wasn't my question. I know we'd rather them not have nukes. My question was how we can possibly think we've achieved our war objectives if we haven't actually prevented them from ever having a nuclear weapon, since that was one of our most important objectives?

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 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 (84) |


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