2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.
I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Both Rubio and Hegseth have been very clear and unwavering about what the mission is. Just watch their full press conferences. Not clips.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.
??? It really seems like you haven't watched Rubio and Hegseth's press confrerences.

These are quotes from the two of them in recent days:
HEGSETH: The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused: Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure and they will never have nuclear weapons.
HEGSETH: This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission: destroy the missile threat, destroy the navy, no nukes
RUBIO: The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully.
RUBIO: Number one is our mission and our focus is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and their ability to manufacture them, as well as the threat posed by their navy to global shipping. That's our objective.

That said, we would not mind, we would not be heartbroken, and we hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible. But the objective of this mission is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and of their naval capabilities.

That's just a handful I've found, there may be more. Can you post links to comments that you think have caused confusion?
 
Rubio very clearly explained the situation yesterday. He said this is a question of timing, not of intent. The US was going to strike Iran regardless of what Israel did. Israel striking first affected the timing of when the US struck Iran. In the 3/2 presser, Rubio was talking about the timing of the strike, not the intent to strike. But, unsurprisingly, the clip you provided cuts Rubio short. Shocker. I suggest you watch the full clip.

Rubio's 3/3 press conference (3:29 - 4:34)


Source: https://youtu.be/FuCkP2LnmJs?si=FGyg-PmDkrNeXxEp&t=209


Quite funny how he ends his statement this, isn't it?

No, where it cuts off makes no difference.
I clearly stated "...lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new."
So you're saying that he successfully gaslit you.
That's fine. But not me, and not most, and that's why "Rubio backtracks" was such a common headline. Listening to more of his
attempted fix, does not make him credible. Especially after Trump so clearly contradicted him. Okay, I'm done engaging you...
 
No, where it cuts off makes no difference.
I clearly stated "...lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new."
So you're saying that he successfully gaslit you.
That's fine. But not me, and not most, and that's why "Rubio backtracks" was such a common headline. Listening to more of his
attempted fix, does not make him credible. Especially after Trump so clearly contradicted him. Okay, I'm done engaging you...
He didn't backtrack. I take this as you were gaslit by headlines. We were always going to strike Iran. Israel affected the timing of when we did that. I'm sorry if this is incomprehensible to you.

To further hit home the fact you're wrong, in the clip you provide, the 3/2 part was clipped to not include the words he said just prior. This is Rubio's full opening statement from 3/2:
The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind. I haven't gotten a chance to see a lot of reporting. I don't understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you, and I'll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you'll report it that way.

The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully. I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.

The second question I've been asked is: Why now? Well, there's two reasons why now. The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic, and in fact it beared to be true because, in fact, the – within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter had already been activated to launch. In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.

The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the President made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.

Going back to the purpose, the purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind, meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and can inflict so much damage, that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions.

They are producing, by some estimates, over 100 of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build a hundred of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one-way attack drones that they also have. They've been doing this for a very long time. And by the way, they've been doing it under sanction. You see the attacks they're conducting right now. They're attacking airports. They're attacking hotels. They are hitting, not just military bases; they're attacking our embassies directly. They're attacking facilities that have nothing to do with war or with military.

And that's a weakened Iran. That's an Iran despite years of sanction. Imagine a year from now or a year and a half from now the capabilities they would have to inflict damage on us. It's an unacceptable risk, especially in the hands of a regime that's run by radical clerics. The ayatollah is a radical – was a radical cleric. That entire regime is led by radical clerics who don't make geopolitical decisions; they make decisions on the basis of theology – their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one. That has to be taken very seriously as well.

So that was the purpose for what this operation is all about. That's what it's focused on. As the President said earlier today, it is on or ahead of schedule. I will defer to the Department of War to discuss the progress being made at a tactical level. But it was the right decision and an important decision for the safety and security of the world.

Rubio also said this on 3/2:
QUESTION: Are you saying the U.S. was forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, first – well, two things I would say. Number one is: no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That's the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage.

Look at the damage they're doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.

Anyone who thinks he "backtracked" on 3/3 is making things up. He talks about the timing in both the 3/2 and 3/3 press conferences, and he talks about the intent in both the 3/2 and 3/3 press conferences. Why this is so confusing to you all, I have no clue.
 
Last edited:
Rubio backtracks
Can anyone trust Marco Rubio? He's been completely, and shamelessly, inconsistent.
For a comprehensive look (too much to quote here) at how Rubio has changed his deeply held convictions on foreign affairs, like Russia and Ukraine, see this list of bills he sponsored and remarks he made about the conflict before becoming Secretary of State, and then compare them to the current situation and the reversal of sentiment — where the administation is no longer taking any actions to condem or punish the invaders. The fact is that this administration no longer even bothers to condemn the daily killing of civilians in by Russian drone attacks and will likely do the same when more civilians inevitably die in this new war.

https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/marco-rubio-russia-and-ukraine
 
Maybe the Trump Administration really does have an actual plan, but it's soooooo good, that to reveal it, would be dangerous!
Think: The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, in which the Ark (Trump's Secret Exit Plan, here) is opened & everyone's faces melt.

Republicans would totally believe this, as they believed Trump had a double-secret health plan, that would only be revealed if folks
could be conned convinced to "Repeal & Replace" the Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2015, Trump told them the secret plan
would be revealed in "two weeks" dozens of times...and after nine years of that, it was somehow lesser :oops: in late 2024,
becoming, meekly, "concepts of a plan" [1:30 in vid] in the debate he lost to VP Harris. As with the fictional health plan, the main
reason people keep asking--but not getting--answers to "the Plan" re. Iran question...is because obviously no plan actually exists.
This is why Trump has said 6 or 8 different things (so far...there will probably be more). Obviously they could "Put up or shut up"
to counter the skeptics...but it seems like they don't even have "concepts of a plan" in Iran, in 2026.

[p.s. Many times Trump said that the secret plan was done, complete! But here, years later (2024) he admits:
"If we can come up with a plan..." [1:13 in] unintentionally admitting that his public claims of a "finished" plan, were pure lies]


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p6zZZ3DPGE
 
Last edited:
The fact is that this administration no longer even bothers to condemn the daily killing of civilians in by Russian drone attacks
to be fair, neither does our main stream media really.

i just scrolled 15 pages of google search (time frame: 1 year) and -as far as amrican media-in jan/feb we've got the "yearly totals" of casualties articles (pbs, npr, la times, bloomberg, cnn, reuters, detroit catholic,) and articles on individual attacks Cbs nov 2025, AP News aug 1, Pbs june 24 and NBC june 4th with the headline "1 million russian troops killed or wounded".

that's it.
 
Maybe the Trump Administration really does have an actual plan, but it's soooooo good, that to reveal it, would be dangerous!
Hegseth and some military general just gave a break down this morning with maps and laser pointers and stuff. They certainly have a military plan about which targets they want to take out.

If you mean 'do they have a plan for the people of Iran after Mission Accomplished'.. everyone from Trump on down has been pretty clear the answer is "no". The iranians can figure it out.
 
Why would there be famine in Iran if it were occupied?
(I agree that an opposed occupation would be ghastly, with a steady flow of casualties).
Occupation imposes many restrictions on the people being occupied. Their ability to move about (checkpoints, ID checks, searches for weapons, etc.), their ability to buy/sell to foreign sources of food. Uncertainty also leads a population to hoard their resources, like food, because you don't know if you will be able to buy any tomorrow. Prices fluctuations also cause hoarding, because if prices soar you can get rich selling hoarded food. Fuel shortages, electric outages, lockdowns because of terrorist/freedom fighter attacks, fear of moving in public in general all increase the difficulty of keeping food on the table.
 
FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.

Compared to past administrations, of either party, this is amateur hour.
I'm assuming that the joint chiefs of staff and Marco Rubio (and maybe Hegseth) got together and had that discussion and made the plan that was then executed.
And then there were people tasked with explaining this plan to Donald Trump, who, given past performance, understood only half of it, forgot half of it before he talked to the press/social media, and then made the rest up. Since the Supreme Leader's word is The Truth, after Trump pronounces something, his underlings (incl. Rubio) need to fall in line, and must appear to never have been out of line, to avoid falling out of favor with Trump.
Because of that, I would trust Monday Rubio over Tuesday Rubio, because Monday Rubio still acted as if truth was something we all share, instead of something defined by the Supreme Leader.

The fact that the USSR's lead propaganda vehicle, Pravda, means "truth", and that Trump dubbed his "truth social", is beyond ironic at this point.
 
@NoParty - Given SecDUI Hegseth's open distain for anyone who isn't a "warrior" and the chaos he's caused by arbitrarily removing anyone who isn't a straight white male from any position of importance, there is zero chance he will admit that any of his warriors did anything improper. This will get buried by whatever scandal inevitably follows in 47's clown show of an administration.

But to the point, someone circled the wrong building on a computer screen, that data got sent to a tactical squadron as part of a target package, those coordinates were loaded into the guidance system of a JDAM, a pilot flew to the coordinates he was given and pushed a button when it was scheduled to be pushed. Whoever should have cross checked the data could have been anywhere in chain back to when NRO first acquired the satellite image.

As the applicable manual states, "Proper database management is necessary for effective targeting. The Joint Targeting. Toolbox (JTT) is the tool of record for the joint targeting community."

free download, your tax dollars at work - https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-60/3-60-AFDP-TARGETING.pdf
 
Not what I was expecting:

Kuwaiti F/A-18 Hornet Responsible For Shooting Down Three USAF F-15E Strike Eagles: [unconfirmed] Report


External Quote:
Seligman's story is based on three sources "familiar with initial reports of the incident." Just one Hornet was supposedly involved, launching three missiles and taking down the three Strike Eagles. Thankfully, the crews all survived. The report goes on to state that the 'blue-on-blue' incident occurred as multiple Iranian drones were penetrating Kuwaiti airspace. One of these impacted a base that resulted in the death of six Americans.
https://www.twz.com/news-features/k...ng-down-three-usaf-f-15e-strike-eagles-report

This actually makes more sense as a pilot who thinks he's looking at a drone has far fewer system safeguards in place to prevent a friendly fire incident. Still, I imagine several procedures were violated if this is how it really went down.
 
A copy of the full [WaPo] article is at https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com...s-campaign-in-iran/articleshow/129040273.html
External Quote:

The military's Maven Smart System, which is built by data mining company Palantir, is generating insights from an astonishing amount of classified data from satellites, surveillance and other intelligence, helping provide real-time targeting and target prioritisation to military operations in Iran, according to three people familiar with the system. Embedded into the system is Anthropic's AI tool Claude, a technology that was banned by the Pentagon last week after heated negotiations over the terms of its use in war.

[...]

As planning for a potential strike in Iran was underway, Maven, powered by Claude, suggested hundreds of targets, issued location coordinates, and prioritised those targets according to importance, said two of the people. The pairing of Maven and Claude has created a tool that is speeding the pace of the campaign, reducing Iran's ability to counterstrike and turning weeks-long battle planning into real-time operations, said one of the people. The AI tools also evaluate a strike after it is initiated, the person said.
This may be the first war where AI makes kill decisions.
 
I wonder if AI will become a way for humans to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions, a "plausible deniability" tool.
"I was just following orders"?
But you'd have to get rid of the JAGs.. And allow AI to take actions that violate laws of war or perhaps constitutional rights, and to conduct surveillance. Wait a minute…
 
Last edited:
Russia doesn't have this yet? i'd think with China as their ally they would.

Many of the systems the military uses to collect and process intelligence data, analyze it, develop target lists, and pass that data to commanders in the field are already so highly automated that "AI" is matter of semantics in some cases. The LLMs taking the software world by storm are just the next evolution in an ongoing race for digital supremacy.

If Russia had similar capabilities I would have expected much better performance in the Ukraine war than we have actually seen so far. As to China, that's anyone's guess but based on their available Deep Seek LLM they are clearly hard at work.
 
If Russia had similar capabilities I would have expected much better performance in the Ukraine war than we have actually seen so far
plus im guessing you need data to input and while we (and mostly israel, other middle east countries) likely have had a big spy presence in iran for years, Russia maybe doesnt have that kind of detail about ukraine?

i was reading that we've been testing Maven in ukraine (ukrainians testing it for us i guess would be the politically correct way to say it), but nothing that sounds like their version of it is making "kill decisions".
 
Back
Top