How much should u. s. fight iran?

[strateguy632]

Poll

Ships to protect israel, defense, from iran missile, practice stopping iran ballistic missile? Or attack too?

Shield israel from missile

Also destroy iran missile launch soldiers and equipment

Also destroy petroleum industry that fuels missiles

Also destroy iran jets and warships? All now?

Warn iran and each day iran fire at israel , add another type of target as above? Until iran is deterred?

A total of 3 votes were cast: 2 girls and 1 guys. See detailed results

[DJB72]

In Trump's shoes I'd have forces in the area on high alert but at this point in a strictly defensive position. That includes protecting the Embassy in Israel.

I'd apply to the UN to enforce a "No Fly Zone" outside Iranian borders for any object leaving the ground within Iran and I'd be looking at strategic strike points with conventional ordinance (MOAB) in the event they try to launch anything bigger than a frisbee, but aim exclusively for military and armament infrastructure - as close to zero civilian casualties as possible.

[strateguy632]

Good plan for example bombing iran nuclear facility as trump did.

[DJB72]

Wrote my answer before the bombing and before I knew the US Embassy had been hit.

Given that Iran can't possibly be so incompetent that they didn't actually aim at the Embassy, the strikes the B2 bombers managed with as yet no reported human lives lost, just infrastructure, were inevitable.

[exitseven]

If necessary the US should deploy the so called bunker busters to destroy Iran's Nuke facility.

[Cormac995]

Full bombing campaign followed by boots on the ground invasion. Kill all their heads of state destroy every military asset they have to the last jeep and bounce.

[strateguy632]

I disagree but i respect your opinion.

[Cormac995]

I respect yours as well and understand it too. I was born in 95 I remember 9/11 and the war on terror well and it was a shit show, but we keep getting dragged back into the middle east for a reason. You don't have to like something for it to be necessary when it comes to geopolitics and the greater good sometimes you have to do disgusting things to keep the world safe. It's bad enough North Korea has nukes but these radical Islamic countries are so obsessed with martyrdom I think they might actually use them if they got them.

I've seen the damage terrorism can do and how evil these groups are with my own eyes, my moms husband was a 9/11 first responder. My mom has to spend every day knowing she's going to be a widow someday because of that since he has lung damage and a high risk of cancer. When it comes to a hostile terrorist power being able to create weapons, they could use to end the world I don't believe in half measures. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[Cormac995]

Honestly, I think Afghanistan could have gone differently if we stuck to our guns, but we were so desperate to pull out and so unprepared we turned the whole thing into a shit show. We did establish a democratic government that was functioning and making progress, but we left before we gave them a reason to fight for it, be proud of it, respect it and value it.

If you hand someone freedom who has been a slave to fear their entire life, they often don't know what to do anymore. We gave them rights and a democratic government, but we didn't increase their standard of living or make the lives of the everyday people better so when the time came to fight for what they were given they decided they didn't have enough for it to be worth the effort.

If we had stayed longer, trained a better military for them and given them a reason to fight for their new country then they would have but since we didn't make their lives any better to them it was just a new boss same as the old one and nothing changed so why care? in my opinion the problem with regime change is we don't commit to the necessary amount of time. It can work we just tend to get bored and tired too soon which is what causes these problems. Do the job right the first time and you don't have to do it a second.