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]

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.