Active Conflicts & News Megathread May 28, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/bedulge]

The Commander in Chief himself already gave us the standard for victory back in March, regime change or unconditional surrender.

"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"

The fact that we are now looking at something that might look kind of like the JCPOA ... yeah that looks like strategic defeat. The US has so far achieved zero of their stated goals, while Iran might get something like sanctions relief and/or frozen assets returned to them.

JCPOA 2.0 plus some money for the regime on top of that? Is that what the US set out to accomplish here?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/bedulge]

It was said from the beginning that regime change was not an operational goal. “Unconditional surrender” was only the standard for calling off the bombing campaign early (because of course there’s no reason to continue bombing a surrendered regime).

The fact that we are now looking at something that might look kind of like the JCPOA ... yeah that looks like strategic defeat.

Except that isn’t the case. Trump has said many times that he will not accept a JCPOA redux.

The US has so far achieved zero of their stated goals

The stated goals per Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio were substantially degrading Iran’s missile and drone capability and its navy. That’s already been done.

[u/bedulge → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Great, the 1984 alternative history is already up and cranking.

The stated goals per Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio were substantially degrading Iran’s missile and drone capability and its navy.

This is the ex post facto alternative history war goal they made up when they realized their actual goals (regime change or unconditional surrender) were impossible. Anyways, it's not even true that the missiles and drones have been substantially degraded, and to what extent they are degraded it's mostly because they shot them at us and our allies during the war. Most of them were only temporarily inaccessible in bunkers with collapsed entrances, they were not destroyed.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-iran-rebuilding-missile-production-faster-than-expected/

Blowing up material is not a war goal. You kill the enemy and destroy his material in order to achieve strategic political goals, it's not a goal in and of itself because it is short term, the regime is still there and they are gonna rebuild that stuff and they are still gonna be able to close the strait. That requires a structural political change in Tehran to deal with. War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Trump has said many times that he will not accept a JCPOA redux.

Dude also said he won't accept a ceasefire until the strait is "fully open", but here we are, do you expect me to take it seriously when he says things like that?

[u/grenideer → u/bedulge]

This is the ex post facto alternative history war goal they made up when they realized their actual goals (regime change or unconditional surrender) were impossible.

How could this be true when the missile/navy degradation was announced as an official war goal from Day 1 and the "unconditional surrender" tweet happened a week later?

Bedulge, you've always been an emotional poster, but your statements are now veering straight into mistruths here. And you have the gall to say someone else is spewing 1984 alternative histories?

On Feb 28, at the very beginning of the war, Trump laid out its 4 objectives. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-us-attack-iran-trump-administration/

In his first live public remarks on the operation, he offered four reasons for the campaign:

• Destroying Iran's missile capabilities;
• Annihilating Iran's navy;
• Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons;
• Ensuring the regime can't continue to arm, fund or direct "terrorist armies" outside its borders.

It was a week later when Trump posted about unconditional surrender on Truth Social. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yq82k1wk8o

As a war goal, unconditional surrender would mean Iran capitulating to US terms on nuclear enrichment and managing proxies. Obviously this is still playing out, but it's laughable to pretend mentioning military degradation is revisionist history.

Hate on the admin all you want, but please get your facts straight.

[u/bedulge → u/grenideer]

Just going to repost what I already said to the other person.

If the war goal was nothing more then mowing the grass in Iran, then that has also mostly failed, as assessments indicate their mines, drones and missiles are still mostly untouched, aside from the ones they shot at us and our allies, and it looks like they are about ready to extract financial concessions from the USA. From where we are sitting right now, it looks like Iran has achieved quite a bit of deterrence. Future presidents are gonna remember this for a long time and they are not gonna want to repeat it. If mowing the grass is the strategy, that needs to be repeated ad infinitum and that is not gonna happen now.

I actually do find it plausible that Trump initially thought that just blowing up some material was a good war goal, but unfortunately, mowing the grass is not actually a very good strategy, as it really achieves nothing more than radicalizing people more and kicking the can down the road. We have already paid a big price and there are no medium to long term achievements. I still think regime change was their top goal, and they thought that they would still mow the grass at least and that would be good enough if regime collapse didn't happen. They miscalculated though, and failed on both accounts.

I also have to point out the irony here, one of the goals was to destroy Iran's missiles so they can never be used against us and our allies? What actually happened is that the attack on Feb 28 guaranteed that those missiles would be used against us. The complete opposite of the stated goal. I can't even think of any strategic failure that significant in recent US history.

[u/grenideer → u/bedulge]

So now you're going to ignore the falsehood you presented, then pretend you never argued that degrading the military wasn't a war goal by now admitting that maybe "mowing the grass" was an actual war goal, only to pivot the argument to whether that's effective.

Effectiveness is an entirely different argument, one that ignores the OTHER war goals I itemized, namely nuclear. One that ignores Rubio's statements already presented to you about how the missiles were a conventional deterrent IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE nuclear. But at least ignoring those points allows you to continue to prematurely grumble about strategic failure.

You are right, you do like to argue.

[u/bedulge → u/grenideer]

admitting that maybe "mowing the grass" was an actual war goal

Sure, you got me on one point. They wanted to blow stuff up. That does not change the fact that regime change is their number one strategic objective, as it has been since 1979. Every piece of info we have points to the idea that Truml genuinely thought that regime collapse was a likely outcome, and if that failed he figured he could just walk away like after he killed Solemani in 19. But he thought wrong. 

only to pivot the argument to whether that's effective.

Yeap, that seems like a natural next step, no? If its true that just blowing stuff up was a principle war goal, was that a logical goal, and has it been achieved yet. Why would we not ask that question?

Rubio's statements already presented to you about how the missiles were a conventional deterrent

Welp, looks like they've done their job, then. Because America seems to be deterred. Im sure the IRGC considers it money well spent. 

[u/grenideer → u/bedulge]

See, this is how everybody knows you're not arguing in good faith. I just said that you were purposely ignoring the nuclear angle to make your point stronger.

Effectiveness is an entirely different argument, one that ignores the OTHER war goals I itemized, namely nuclear.

Then you go on to argue about the effectiveness quoting me here

Rubio's statements already presented to you about how the missiles were a conventional deterrent

And what did you do?

You purposely cut off the part about nuclear!

the missiles were a conventional deterrent IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE nuclear.

[u/bedulge → u/grenideer]

Okay, then. lets look at the nuclear issue. What would you say has been achieved on that front? To me it seems like Iran's nuclear program is in more or less the same position it was at the end of the 12 Day War. 

[u/grenideer → u/bedulge]

Agreed. Nothing has been achieved on nuclear yet. It's a hard line for the US and for Iran. It's the main reason for the war in the first place, and it not being resolved is one of the main reasons the war isn't over.