Should The US Use It’s Capabilities To Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Capability?

[TheDaliLama]

You can’t keep kicking the can down the road with our problems with Iran. The shit would have hit the fan sooner or later. I think this is good time to do it. Let the Israelis do most of it and if they need something from us so be it. Iran is behind most of the unrest in the Middle East. If the opportunity is here now to do something about it then let’s see it through and end it.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Jacky S

Iraq was not a few months away from having nuclear weapons.

That is true, Iran is much closer by enriching to 60% U-235. Trump still has diplomacy with Iran as an option. The Yahoo/Bannon link is from yesterday, 6/18/25. Incredibly the deal Trump wants with Iran is similar to the Obama deal that he cancelled in 2018.

From the link:

The focus of the diplomacy would be beyond the current fighting, to a long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Trump was pursuing a deal with Tehran to limit the program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions — akin to the Obama-era nuclear deal that he abandoned — and appears to believe such an agreement can still be reached.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-tr...213807066.html

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by Jacky S

So the question is not if the US should furnish the required “bomb” to get the job done, but should the US actually do the deed.

Hell NO unless you want your life upended. If they close the Straight of Hormuz gasoline will double or triple in price. It will crash the economy as you know it. You'll see gas rationing here in the US and elsewhere. The going rate for a girl will go up significantly. The purchasing power of your currency will be transfered to those who hold gold as the people who hold onto the worthless currency thinking it's "real" money become poorer by default.

[Michael8219]

We should not drop the actual bomb but support supply and assist Israel in every way possible with exception of crossing into Iran airspace unless needed (“needed” i.e. rules of engagement inside Iranian borders definition pending lol).

If prices go up and folks lose jobs than rates for certain services will go down as folks lose jobs struggle to make rent food mortgage payments.

As GDP decreases, a country may experience Higher Poverty Rates; Exploitation increases; Social and Economic Desperation; Lack of Social Support and Protection; and Cultural Factors that typically decreases the PPI (pussy price index).

Good news is that as long as we don’t overtly cross the line all the other bad actors won’t join in and up the actual fighting as no one really “wins” in war except the defense contractors.

Although who knows? Definitely need our bunker buster bomb(s) and our bomber to deliver and take out their prime target. Maybe a lease agreement for a week?

And seems like heating up in the overnight period: “Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran on Thursday and Iranian missiles hit an Israeli hospital overnight, as the week-old air war escalated with no sign yet of an off-ramp.

Following the strike that damaged the Soroka medical centre in Israel's southern city of Beersheba, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tehran's "tyrants" would pay the "full price".…..

[Tiny]

Great posts in this thread, including Michael's just above.

If the USA drops bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities, there's a good chance America gets drawn into the war. Iran will retaliate, the U.S. may escalate, and the next thing you know we've got a mess.

Iran needs a face saving way out of this. Without one the mullahs will continue the fight.

When George W. Bush first threatened Iraq with invasion and started mobilizing the military, I didn't think he'd go through with it. Rather I figured he was going to force Saddam Hussein to open the country to weapons inspectors, and the problem would be solved. I thought Bush was a genius. Well, Hussein agreed, IAEA inspectors entered the country, and they didn't find squat. And George W. Bush invaded Iraq anyway and turned out to be a dumb ass instead of a genius.

Maybe Trump is doing what Bush should have done. Hopefully Iran will back down at the last moment and agree to abandon its nuclear ambitions. We may find out by the end of the weekend.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Michael8219

We should not drop the actual bomb but support supply and assist Israel in every way possible with exception of crossing into Iran airspace unless needed (“needed” i.e. rules of engagement inside Iranian borders definition pending lol)

The problem is that the 30,000 lbs MOP can only be carried by the B-2 apparently. So if the Iranians need to be dug out with conventional munitions, the only ones that can do it is the USAF.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by texassapper

The problem is that the 30,000 lbs MOP can only be carried by the B-2 apparently. So if the Iranians need to be dug out with conventional munitions, the only ones that can do it is the USAF.

What do you think about Michael's idea of leasing B-2's to Israel? I can think of several reasons why that probably wouldn't work, but you'd know better than I do.

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by texassapper

The problem is that the 30,000 lbs MOP can only be carried by the B-2 apparently. So if the Iranians need to be dug out with conventional munitions, the only ones that can do it is the USAF.

Correct.
The B52 has the lift capacity, but not all of the logistical equipment involved with getting it on target.

Plus, It is not Stealth. They won’t even know the B-2 is coming. That is, unless someone leaked the info to the Iranians.

That might seem far fetched, but in today’s political climate………

[1blackman1]

All they need is Signal on their phones and they’ll know exactly what where and when.

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

All they need is Signal on their phones and they’ll know exactly what where and when.

Really?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

What do you think about Michael's idea of leasing B-2's to Israel? I can think of several reasons why that probably wouldn't work, but you'd know better than I do.

good idea in theory but probably impracticable. the IDF has some of the best pilots of any nation except none have ever flown the B-2 before. what would the ramp up be on the B-2 even for a top pilot already overall familiar with military aircraft? and the B-2 requires both a pilot and co-pilot.



not sure Trump would allow the Israelis to pilot the B-2. short of the UK there's probably no one else that would be more trustworthy than Israel. it's not like they might actually try to keep it yeah? there could be things about the B-2 we wouldn't want even the most trusted of ally to know.



clearly the advantage if Trump did allow it is it gets the US off the hook. we didn't bomb Iran, Israel did.



also note that even the largest bomb we have is probably not enough meaning it would take multiple strikes according to the experts weighing in on this.



clearly Iran expected an eventual attempt by Israel to take out these sites and the fordow site was built deep underground to counter that.



there's been talk of Israel using the weapons they have and then sending in a strike team to capture the site and destroy it.

[1blackman1]

We’d NEVER allow even an ally access to our most sensitive equipment like the B2. There’s no level of trust that would allow for that. So NO it ain’t happening.

We need another war in the Middle East like we need a hole in the head. The problem is that the administration doesn’t want to come clean on the intelligence regarding Iran. It’s a catch 22 so Netty put Trump between the proverbial rock and hard place.

If Iran is as close to a bomb as Israel claims - months away - then the threat is immediate and existential and therefore we should just bombs away on the mountain till it falls in. There’s no reason to really deliberate on whether or when.

Or (what I believe is far more likely) Iran is far away from making a bomb - let’s call it 2-3 years - then the US has plenty of time to deal with them and possibly even reinstate the Obama deal with Trump branding so he can claim it’s his and Iran would not get a bomb anytime soon.

Netty knows the answer is the latter so acting now forces Trump’s hand and that’s why he acted now - unnecessarily. If the White House actually was honest about the intelligence answer (not give the actual underlying knowledge) that Iran isn’t that close the answer would be obvious to everyone. But they won’t be clear. Today Karoline Lies said Iran is within weeks. Everyone knows that’s false. Well except for Trump supporters because they actually think she tells the truth.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

We’d NEVER allow even an ally access to our most sensitive equipment like the B2. There’s no level of trust that would allow for that. So NO it ain’t happening.

We need another war in the Middle East like we need a hole in the head. The problem is that the administration doesn’t want to come clean on the intelligence regarding Iran. It’s a catch 22 so Netty put Trump between the proverbial rock and hard place.

If Iran is as close to a bomb as Israel claims - months away - then the threat is immediate and existential and therefore we should just bombs away on the mountain till it falls in. There’s no reason to really deliberate on whether or when.

Or (what I believe is far more likely) Iran is far away from making a bomb - let’s call it 2-3 years - then the US has plenty of time to deal with them and possibly even reinstate the Obama deal with Trump branding so he can claim it’s his and Iran would not get a bomb anytime soon.

Netty knows the answer is the latter so acting now forces Trump’s hand and that’s why he acted now - unnecessarily. If the White House actually was honest about the intelligence answer (not give the actual underlying knowledge) that Iran isn’t that close the answer would be obvious to everyone. But they won’t be clear. Today Karoline Lies said Iran is within weeks. Everyone knows that’s false. Well except for Trump supporters because they actually think she tells the truth.

i don't believe your premise that Bibi "knows" Iran isn't close but acted anyway to force Trump to assist Israel. i think Iran is close and might even have a small device now. if Israel has credible evidence of that then that is why they acted. there's the Oct 7th issue also as Iran clearly funded that via their proxy's. crippling Iran removes the threats of more terrorist attacks and a possible nuclear strike.


this has been building up for decades and it was without actual regime change within Iran inevitable.


one thing is certain. if Iran did create nuke weapons they would use them against Israel. and possibly their frenemy Iraq. and others like Saudi Arabia. no one in that reason would feel safe with a nuclear Iran.

[Michael8219]

Yep my idea to lease the B-2 was half in jest.

But what if you had an official treaty / lease agreement signed sealed etc and paraded a decorated Israeli pilot and copilot (or dressed up our best US pilots in Israeli garb) and did the deed?

State that US will provide the KC130 mid flight fueling and escorts then have Israel AF go with it into Iran airspace?

Take photos and videos for posterity and release all the “evidence” the day after the strike(s)? May need a couple B-2s, backups etc.

Very unfortunate and I don’t like to do it, but Iran’s nuclear facilities MUST be taken out but we can’t be traced as the ones doing it (although obvious Netty and Trump/our joint chiefs of staff/ SecDef are working together).

[txdot-guy]

If a deal is to be made in the future then some one needs to be a third party that has the ability to either inhibit the Israelis or be seen as inhibiting the Israelis.

If the administration allows the use of offensive military power against the Iranians then the resulting conflict will be longer and bloodier than it needs to be not to mention costlier than it needs to be as well.

There is a big difference between supporting an ally against attack versus participating in an attack. The US needs to “stay” out of the conflict as much as possible.